Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 6 December.

HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Farm Subsidies

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about cuts in farm subsidies; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have received a large number of representations. Negotiations on GATT are due to be brought to a conclusion at a meeting in Brussels next week; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will attend.

Mr. Thurnham: Should not we be moving away from the kind of protectionism that the Opposition want, so that Europe's farmers become less dependent on the taxpayer and more sensitive to the needs of consumers, in the widest possible sense?

Mr. Gummer: The Community has already made a considerable offer to the GATT round, which will mean—over a period—a reduction of 30 per cent. in the support that we give. That, however, will have to be done at a pace that the farming industry can accommodate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that the figure is not 30 per cent., but a net 15 per cent. from now, and that that in no way meets the demands of the Americans taking part in the GATT negotiations, who want 70 per cent? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ensure that a trade war does not break out after the conference that is due next week?

Mr. Gummer: I am not in the House of Commons to meet the demands of the Americans; I am here to defend the interests of Britain, and the European Community of which we are part. If the hon. Gentleman wants to carry

out GATT talks on the basis that we give in to mid-western American farmers instead of defending our own interests, it is a good job that it is not his party that is responsible for standing up for Britain, because it would not do so.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the suckler cow subsidy, the advance payment on the sheep premium and the drop in interest rates have been a great help to livestock farmers? Nevertheless, we must accept that prices have been substantially down this autumn and that we have a long way to go to increase profitability.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In relation to the less-favoured areas, I have done all that I can within the rules of the Community; but world price levels have none the less fallen, which means that our livestock farmers are having a very difficult time. We shall have to continue to look for ways in which we can help.

Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister not aware that it simply does not make sense to throw good money after bad to subsidise farmers? Will not he go to Europe and press for a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, using agri-environmental payments as the core of the policy, as advocated by the Labour party and all reputable conservation and farming lobbies?

Mr. Gummer: If the Labour party began by accepting that we do not "go to Europe", because we are already in Europe, its members might get the geography right before proceeding any further. It is that attitude to the rest of Europe which will make it impossible for us to obtain a reasonable arrangement on agriculture.
The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the present Government have obtained a better deal in Europe than any that Labour could possibly hope to obtain. Until he advances propositions that show some understanding of the common agricultural policy, he will continue to be listened to by no one, either in this country or in the rest of Europe.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the answer given to me last Thursday on this issue by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will he assure the farmers of Northern Ireland that their special interests will be kept in mind?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have taken a particular interest in the needs of the farmers of Northern Ireland. I have met the Ulster Farmers Union and other farming interests and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland keeps me very fully informed. I shall ensure that in the negotiations we do not forget the particular problems of Ulster.

Hill Farmers

Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the recent agreement regarding subsidies to farming will have on small hill farmers.

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of and future prospects for livestock farmers in the English uplands.

Mr. Gummer: Any agreement in GATT must provide the opportunity for continued support for farmers in less-favoured areas.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware of the desperate plight of many hill farmers in Weardale and many other areas of my constituency who play a critical role in maintaining the enormous beauty of the area? What can he do to guarantee a future for them?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that I have already sought to do all that can be done to help the hill farmers of whom she speaks. I hope that she also agrees that I have sought to ensure that they get the extra and special help that they need. I hope, however, that the hon. Lady will mention to them the policies of her own party, which the recent independent report showed would be infinitely damaging to them and would mean a considerable loss in terms of their existing incomes.

Mr. Nicholson: May I pay tribute to the concern about this matter hitherto shown by my right hon. Friend, in contrast with the desultory interest shown by the Labour party, typified by the extraordinary gaffe a moment ago by the Labour spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems faced by hill farmers in my constituency—those who farm on Exmoor, the Brendon hills, the Quantocks and the Blackdown hills. Will he do his best to bring forward the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for 1991 to the earliest possible date?

Mr. Gummer: I assure my hon. Friend that I am still considering the information given to me on the hill livestock compensatory allowance. I shall make the announcement as soon as I possibly can. My hon. Friend was right to point out that, despite remarks of a constituency nature by Opposition Members, the Labour party's policies would very significantly reduce farmers' incomes, as the Savill report shows.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of yesterday's statement by the vice-president of the European Community that at the GATT talks he is prepared to negotiate subsidy reductions amounting to more than 30 per cent. if the Community agrees to reductions amounting to more than 30 per cent., will the Secretary of State bring the proposal back to the House for consideration before Her Majesty's Government approve it?

Mr. Gummer: Over the years, I have learnt that leaks during negotiations in Brussels or anywhere else are better not commented upon until we know the realities. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has found me wanting in defending United Kingdom interests. I shall continue to do so.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that milk quotas have been an outstanding success in directing taxpayers' money throughout the EEC to the producers rather than to the storers and in preventing subsidies from going to exported surplus commodities? Why can he not see that the same system could be applied universally, thereby preventing the depopulation of the countryside without excess expense to the taxpayer?

Mr. Gummer: There are very grave difficulties about extending quotas to the whole of the agricultural industry. It would cause the end of the growth in new technology, a

wholly quotaed system would remove the interest in the market and young people would be deterred from entering agriculture. Moreover, agriculture would not change. That would be extremely damaging and I certainly would not propose it.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister acknowledge the particularly important role that hill livestock compensatory allowances play in the uplands? Is he still alone in the Council of Ministers in resisting the tiering of HLCAs? Does he not accept that if tiering were introduced it would prove to be a particularly effective method of targeting support on the small upland family farms, which are most in need of that help?

Mr. Gummer: Throughout my time as Minister I have shown interest in HLCAs and sought to use them as effectively as possible. Also, Britain has sought to green the HLCAs and has permission from the Community to do that. I hope that we shall be able to spread that elsewhere. The HLCAs are an essential way of keeping people in the hillsides to look after the land. Without them, the land would not be properly cared for.

Small Famers

Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to protect small farmers from unfair competition.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): We seek to ensure fair competition for all British farmers.

Mr. Steen: It is not just hill farmers who are facing difficulties. Livestock farmers in the lowlands are also facing severe difficulties, many of them to the point of bankruptcy. Can my hon. Friend the Minister see his way to doing something about the cheap imports of meat from eastern Europe which are coming through east Germany? That is having a terrible effect on the meat regimes of the small lowland farmers. Also, will he look again at quotas, because that may be a way of helping small farmers to deal with the most intolerable conditions?

Mr. Curry: I quite understand my hon. Friend's concern about small farmers. As he will recall, we sought to help them when we distributed the extra 1 per cent. of milk. We have to be careful, but any Community policy for small farmers would stand precious little chance of helping the United Kingdom, due to the different sizes. On quotas, we look at all the options, particularly in the light of GATT, but there is a danger of prices being left so high that they are marooned above consumption and we would then have a new crisis. There is the problem of the United Kingdom being pinned down where it has a competitive advantage. We could do with more milk, but we cannot produce it, because of the quota system and there is a major problem of young entrants. We are not aware of meat coming into the United Kingdom from east Germany, but east Germany can circulate products throughout the entire Community and we will exercise the strongest supervision over that.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that small hill farmers will not survive without financial aid from the Government? To restore confidence, will the Minister give an assurance that he will do his utmost to


ensure that no further subsidy cuts will be made in the next four or five years? What immediate plans has he to help farmers in need?

Mr. Curry: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the hill farmer. I agree also that the hill farmer will not survive without some support from the public purse. We have extended a large addition to the subsidy going to the beef and sheepmeat sector in particular. We keep the matter under review. We have a series of programmes relating to how we can help environmentally, but we cannot reverse what is happening in the marketplace. We will do our best to help and we recognise the importance of those producers.

Mr. Marland: As my hon. Friend is aware, many dairy farmers, both small and large, depend on the purchasing ability of the milk marketing board. Now that the future of the board is in the public domain, will my hon. Friend consider a role for it as a possible buyer of last resort for milk?

Mr. Curry: The future role of the milk marketing board is a matter for the board itself. We are anxious for the board to make proposals for the future of dairy marketing in the United Kingdom. There is no Government-prescribed plan for that. We are obviously discussing various options with it, but it is for the board to decide where it wants to go. It started the debate—not the Government—and now that it has been started it must be carried through to a sensible conclusion.

Research and Development

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists to discuss the future of research and development.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): December 1989 was the last occasion when the IPMS approached this Department on research and development and the matter was dealt with by correspondence.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that public confidence in his Department was severely shaken by the closure of the Institute of Food Research in Bristol? Flow does he intend to restore public confidence in his Department when he intends to sack 40 food scientists at Norwich and Reading?

Mr. Maclean: Quite simply, by pointing out the full facts. Although Bristol closed, the laboratories at Norwich and Reading are being expanded and there are four other research associations. My Department operates labora tories at Weybridge, Torry and Weymouth. Seventy of the scientists who gave up their posts at Bristol will transfer to Bristol university and we shall increase research expenditure from £13 million to £17 million. Food safety research is being increased, not cut.

Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of research in this country is the envy of Europe?

Mr. Maclean: I do. For example, in respect of the jobs at Norwich which were mentioned, we are transferring the £750,000 that was being spent at that laboratory on near-market projects such as robotics, meat handling and

processing, to diet and nutrition, health and safety, salmonella, listeria and BSE research—which is the right priority for Government.

Mr. Morley: The Minister's answer is not good enough. In a written answer from his Department dated 25 October, he announced a cutback of 38 research projects. Thirteen of them relate to fish refrigeration, shellfish, smoking and safety. The Minister knows that the fishing industry is facing a crisis, so how does he expect it to pick up the vital research projects that he is cutting back, thereby undermining the industry's viability?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Food safety research has increased from £13·2 million to £17·1 million this year. It is right that the taxpayers' money should be spent on basic, strategic and food safety research, and for the industry to concentrate on near-market projects involving food techniques and processing, which it is better able to understand and to fund.

Rhizomania

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements there are in place to monitor his Ministry's voluntary code of practice on protecting farms from rhizomania.

Mr. Curry: Our guidelines to civil engineering contractors on precautions against the spread of animal and plant diseases emphasise the need for the plant health and seeds inspectorate to be consulted from the planning stage of all major works affecting agricultural land.

Mr. Coombs: Given the appalling devastation that rhizomania can mean for sugar beet farmers, because the sterilisation of affected land can last for 25 years, will my hon. Friend listen sympathetically to the demands of the National Farmers Union, which is seeking a statutory system of compensation for consequential losses for growers of sugar beet affected by rhizomania and a code of practice to protect sugar beet farms from the coercion of contractors, in particular?

Mr. Curry: There is no provision for payment for consequential losses even in the animal sector, let alone the plant sector. If I were to suggest that such compensation would be likely to be introduced, I should be telling my hon. Friend something that is not the case. As to contractors, we plan to reissue our guidelines in the new year. A statutory basis would not make sense and would be bureaucratic and almost impossible to enforce—but we shall certainly be ready to intervene where there are difficulties. I am prepared to review the controls that we impose in respect of rhizomania, to ensure that, within the requirement to be absolutely strict about preventing the spread of the disease, we are as intelligent and flexible as possible.

Hill Farming

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss British hill farming.

Mr. Gummer: I met representatives of the National Farmers Union on 23 October to discuss the economic conditions in the hills and uplands. I met other representatives of those areas yesterday.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister mentioned in an earlier reply his defence of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. Can he explain why, since 1987, it has been cut by £12·5 million in real terms? When the Minister met NFU representatives, did he give any indication that he is thinking of restoring the value of the allowance in real terms, perhaps to the 1986 level, as that could prove vital to hill farmers?

Mr. Gummer: I have increased hill livestock compensatory amounts, as the Government have done on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman may like to explain to his hill farmers why the independent Savill report suggests that if Labour party policies were adopted there would be a 17 per cent. drop in the typical farmer's profitability.

Mr. Hunter: What is my right hon. Friend's reaction to the NFU's suggestion that the way forward for hill farming and, indeed, all United Kingdom farming is through the introduction of strict supply management?

Mr. Gummer: I do not believe that supply management is the answer to agriculture's problems. We need to get nearer the market, make our support more environmentally oriented and ensure that we do not overproduce. If we were to quota the whole of agriculture, we should do considerable harm to the industry.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that the maintenance of the hill sector is particularly important to ensure the viability of our rural economy and given that in Scotland 90 per cent. of hill farming lies in the less-favoured areas, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects to be able to make a clear statement on the future level of HLCAs? Many of our farmers have reduced incomes because of a drop in the price of calves and lambs.

Mr. Gummer: As I said in answer to an earlier question, I shall make that announcement as soon as possible. I have already extended the suckler cow premium in the LFAs to the maximum amount available. A ewe supplement is to be paid to sheep farmers in the LFAs in 1991. The green pound devaluation will be effective from 7 January. Assistance to the beef and sheep sectors is now worth about £330 million more than in the previous year. There is already a considerable amount of extra help. We are certainly looking at the possibilities of what we should do in terms of the HLCAs, but much has already been done, as I believe that the hon. Lady would acknowledge.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I know that my right hon. Friend has the future of the small family farm in mind. With the freer markets that we expect from within—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about hill farming. The next question is about family farms.

Miss Nicholson: I know that my right hon. Friend has the future of the small family hill farm in mind. Will he make an early statement on term tenancies, which may be the only way in which sons and daughters of small family hill farmers can enter this important industry?

Mr. Gummer: I have already made it clear that I shall publish a paper on alternatives to deal with tenancies. That paper will protect the rights of present tenants. I very much hope that we shall look for a radical change in the system so that more land comes forward for letting.

Family Farms

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the financial position of family farms at present.

Mr. Curry: It is our policy to foster an efficient and competitive farming industry and to ensure its continued viability.

Mr. Taylor: I am interested to hear that the Minister wants to foster an efficient and competitive farming industry. Does he know how strongly farmers feel about the fact that, as the prices that they receive fall, making them uncompetitive and unviable and forcing them out of business, supermarket prices for the food that they produce continue to climb? How is it that the Government manage to preside over the worst of both worlds?

Mr. Curry: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party which is supposed to be in favour of free market economics, would realise that if there is a surplus of supply it is difficult for incomes to rise at the same time. However, we can try to help farmers to overcome the worst of their problems. They will do that by being more competitive. That is our policy and there is no other sensible way of going about it.

Mr. Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to persuade the banks to be more accommodating towards some of our small farmers? When the Labour Government were in office, those farmers were encouraged to produce all that they could at any cost, so they were borrowing—in some cases, overborrowing—from the banks.

Mr. Curry: In general terms, the level of borrowing by British farmers is about 25 per cent., so many have not overborrowed. I recognise that some small farms are in serious difficulties and that is why we try to pay our grants to them as quickly as possible so that we can help the cash flow. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion that the banks could be helpful when they consider individual cases.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will agree that family farms and the farmers in them make a great contribution to maintaining the fabric of rural life and that one of the main problems resulting from the financial pressures facing them this year is that their way of life is very much under threat. What further plans can the Minister announce to enhance rural society and to ensure that that fabric is maintained into the next century?

Mr. Curry: I am perfectly aware of the part that hill farmers play in maintaining rural life, because my constituency has characteristics similar to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Government policies cannot maintain farming family life as such, but we can ensure that we give the necessary assistance, especially for the uplands farms, to enable them to get through difficult economic circumstances, which we all understand. Where


we are able to give further help, especially assistance to farmers who look after the environment as part of their food-producing function, we shall take the initiatives that are open to us.

Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend take it from me—and indeed from every hon. Member who represents a rural constituency—that this time round, the farming community and the National Farmers Union are not crying wolf when they speak about the real pressure on farming? My hon. Friend spoke about helping the environment. Will he and my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the possible extension of the environmentally sensitive areas, especially for Penwith in my constituency?

Mr. Curry: We shall certainly examine the possibility of adding to our policies for helping environmental enhancement. We understand the NFU's point about farmers being in difficulties and our experience is that it would be foolish to deny it. However, I hope that the NFU will not say merely that the answer is yet another multiplication of public subsidy. That is not an answer. If the NFU comes up with sensible proposals that are costed, effective and targeted we shall listen.

Small Farmers

Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from small farmers and hill farmers.

Mr. Gummer: I have received a number of representations about the position of small farms and of farms in the hills and uplands. I shall continue to keep the position under review.

Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister recognise that, despite his words this afternoon in reply to similar questions, small farmers and hill farmers will judge the Government not by their words but by their actions? The Minister may find it necessary in the next few weeks to visit Ribble Valley and the Trough of Bowland. If he looks at the balance sheets of the farmers in those areas, he will find that they are now receiving less in real terms for their livestock than they were receiving a few years ago and that they are facing bankruptcy. They expect action from the Government. When will they see it, or will they be allowed to go out of business?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman talks to those farmers, he will hear from them that the suckler cow premium has been increased to the maximum allowable in those areas; that is action. He will hear that this Government have brought forward the payment of the ewe premium both for the first and for the second instalment; that means action. He will hear that the Government have done so much for the livestock industry that they are now spending almost £800 million a year in support of that industry; that means action. The farmers will then turn to the hon. Gentleman and say that all that the Labour party speaks of is to reduce farm incomes by its policies. Labour's only action would be to cut incomes during these difficult times for farmers. The hon. Gentleman must not come to the House as poorly prepared as that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's actions for those who farm in

less-favoured areas, is not he concerned by the letters that I have sent to him from members of the High Peak Livestock Society, representing farmers in the villages of Wildboarclough, Wincle, Langley, Rainow and Kettleshulme? Those farmers are deepy concerned about their future. Does he accept that hill farmers are essential to the maintenance of the countryside, which is a matter of great environmental importance?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend asks a constituency-based question and shows that he understands his farmers' problems. His question stands in sharp contradistinction to the previous one.
My hon. Friend will know that I agree with him entirely. Without farmers, the countryside will not be cared for, and farmers need the support of society to enable them to look after the countryside. They cannot do it unless they earn enough to meet the costs.

Farm Subsidies

Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the progress made by his Department in securing a reduction of the European Commission budget spent on agricultural subsidies since 1979; and if he will outline any current proposals which the Government have for further reductions.

Mr. Gummer: We have had a sustained and progressive reduction in the real level of agricultural support prices since 1984 and we are committed to achieving a sustained reduction in the level of support in the current GATT negotiations.

Mr. Allen: I do not blame the Minister personally, as he has not been in the job very long, but the Government have had 11 years in which to reduce the level of subsidy, and it still costs the average family about £15 a week throughout the year to sustain high food prices. Now that we have a Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's question?

Mr. Allen: We now have a Prime Minister who may be less supportive of the United States, but will he continue to guarantee that the position of the United States in seeking freer trade in agricultural products will be sustained by him and by the Government?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's figures are utterly wrong; they simply do not stand up. If there were no subsidies, world food prices would rise considerably and the consumer would have to pay more. The £15 figure that he cited has no basis in any sensible fact. I note that he supports United States farmers against United Kingdom farmers. I hope that his hon. Friends will realise that he would like to reduce farm incomes even further and I hope that farmers in constituencies round his will know exactly how to vote when the time comes.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the so-called renegotiation under the previous Labour Government, the common agricultural policy was totally out of control when the Conservative party came into government back in 1979? Does he agree that only the resolve and determination of this Government and of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister brought some sense into the bloated budget?

Mr. Gummer: The lovely countryside of Nottinghamshire would be destroyed if the policies supported by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) were adopted.

Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that spending on agricultural surpluses has got out of hand? Will he confirm that there has been a 68-fold increase of skimmed milk powder, a fourfold increase of beef and a doubling of the amount of butter in intervention? Will he further confirm that he will have to spend an extra £1 billion in the next few years to support that? When will the Minister go to Brussels and start fighting for the British consumer?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman betrays his lack of knowledge both of the common agricultural policy and of the negotiations that are taking place. This Government have fought more effectively than any previous Government for the British consumer and the British farmer and this Minister will continue to do that in the GATT round. It would help considerably if the Opposition would stop slagging off Britain and start supporting its farmers.

Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever form agricultural subsidies or support for the countryside may take in the future, it is vital that the regime should be universal in the Community so that we may have an open and fair market?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Government are fighting for fairness among the countries of the European Community and between the Community and the other countries of the world. That is why I wish that the Opposition would stop promoting American interests and start supporting European interests.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospective future trends of farm incomes.

Mr. Gummer: It is not my practice to forecast future levels of farm incomes.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that 80 per cent. of current farm subsidies go to the richest 20 per cent. of farmers? As the Minister is so anxious to reduce the overall level of farm subsidies, will he tell us what proposals he has to ensure the more equal distribution of the subsidies that will remain?

Mr. Gummer: The policies of this Government are to make sure that subsidies will continue to be paid on the basis of production, where they are production subsidies, and that other subsidies shall increasingly be paid for environmental purposes.[Interruption.] We are determined to make sure that British farmers get a fair share of those subsidies and that they are not distorted so as to help other countries disproportionately.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to these questions. This is a rare opportunity and there are only six minutes before Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the spirit of the agreement in the Agriculture Council with regard to the reduction of agricultural support in the

GATT round relates only to support that aids production and has not stopped the British Government or any other European member state Government supporting the environment? Does he agree that the proposed expansion by 36,000 hectares of less-favoured areas will be a great boost? Will he announce soon exactly which areas are included so that farmers will receive extra income?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The present arrangements suggest that we will be able to continue the help that we are giving for environmental purposes while we reduce that which relates to production. However, there is still much to be fought because the United States is proposing something that would enable it to continue direct support and thus reduce the costs of its exports. We must stop that.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of assisting farmers is to ensure that they get a good price for their product in the marketplace? Will he consider releasing surplus food from intervention stores to assist the Russian people at this time and thereby increase market demand for British produce?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that the answer is as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are looking at all sorts of ways of improving the market, but, in the end, the tone of the market will be upheld only if supply and demand are much more closely correlated.

Agriculture (Profitability)

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the current level of profitability in United Kingdom agriculture.

Mr. Gummer: Farming, particularly in the livestock sector, is going through a difficult time. The Government are determined to ensure its continued viability.

Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to put firmly on record his awareness of the problems caused by a lack of profitability and reassure the House and United Kingdom farmers of his belief in the ultimate success of his strategy?

Mr. Gummer: I will reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to stand extremely strongly behind the British farming community. I hope that, with me, my hon. Friend will pay tribute to the success of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in ensuring that the British knacker industry is no longer stopped by the European Community rules. It will remain as it is at least until 1995, and thereafter there will be a review. That will make sure that the environment is protected because of the important job that that industry does.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the great problem in British farming is the gulf between profitability and subsidies and between the grain barons of East Anglia and their huge profits and the hill farmers of Wales and elsewhere? Does he agree that the answer to the real problems of hill farming is to redistribute subsidies towards hill farmers?

Mr. Gummer: What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely untrue. Our arable farmers are also under a considerable squeeze. Many of them are finding it very


difficult to make profits. Unless they are profitable, they, too, cannot look after the countryside. The hon. Gentleman does the farming industry no good by trying to drive a wedge between different kinds of farmers.

Milk Marketing Board

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the future of the milk marketing board.

Mr. Curry: I have received representations on this subject from a range of individuals and organisations representing milk producers, processors and consumers.

Mr. Bennett: Although I recognise that the present system cannot remain unreformed, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the position of small family farmers in far-flung areas such as Pembrokeshire, who fear that if the national system is broken up into as many as 30 different co-operatives, they will be seriously disadvantaged in relation to dairy manufacturers?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right, but the greatest threat to the small farmer would be to do absolutely nothing and wait for the scheme to collapse under the weight of its problems. The answer is to find a sensible alternative and to get a move on with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 29 November 1990. The first question to a great new Prime Minister, Sir.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): rose—

Mr. Skinner: Resign!

The Prime Minister: Now wait a while.
This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
This evening I shall attend a longstanding engagement in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery).

Mr. King: May I preface my question by asking—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman encompassed it.

Mr. King: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister, may I assure him of the total and united support of my constituency and every constituency in the country?
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the latest round of national health service cuts in the South Birmingham area—a cut of 17 per cent. in the past 15 months in the number of people awaiting an operation and a cut of 26 per cent. in the past five years in the same group? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the national health service continues to make such cuts?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly the intention of our reforms, our management and our financing of the

national health service. I congratulate South Birmingham health authority. It has made good use of the extra resources that it had last year and I expect it to continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as possible.

Mr. Kinnock: May I offer my personal congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on becoming Prime Minister? As the right hon. Gentleman says that he was bounced into the poll tax, does he now intend to abolish it?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to our discussions over the forthcoming years. On the community charge, I have made it perfectly clear what the position will be. We have decided that we shall look again to see what further refinements may be necessary to ensure that the community charge is accepted throughout the country.

Mr. Kinnock: May I offer some help to the right hon. Gentleman—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] It is well intended. He could save himself a great deal of time and trouble and the British people a great deal of money by accepting Labour party policy and abolishing the poll tax now.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take forward a very thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the community charge. In doing so, he will take account of the points made by my hon. Friends both north and south of the Scottish border before we reach conclusions. On this side of the House we believe in examining matters before reaching conclusions.

Mr. Kinnock: Everybody, including the right hon. Gentleman, knows that there is only one fundamental, efficient and fair thing to do with the poll tax and that is to scrap it.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman forgets the alternative, to which he has decided to return. Was not it he who, in 1980, said that
the most unjust of all taxes, local rates, take most from those who can afford least"?

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the special congratulations and welcome that he will receive from East Anglian Members of Parliament and their constituents, particularly as he is an East Anglian Member of Parliament, representing Huntingdon? Will he confirm that shortly he will meet President Bush to discuss the Gulf and other matters of common concern so as to continue the Government's correct policy on these issues?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. The date has not yet been fixed, but I hope that it will be this side of Christmas.

Mr. Ashdown: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Britain's Prime Minister? The whole nation will wish him success in the difficult task ahead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] For the sake of the nation, we wish the right hon. Gentleman success.
If in two weeks' time at the intergovernmental conference all 11 of our European partners say that they can accept the right hon. Gentleman's hard ecu proposal, provided that he will accept that it could be used as a transitional mechanism towards a single currency, perhaps by the end of the decade, will he agree?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome, which I appreciate. There will be a wide range of matters to discuss at the intergovernmental conference and we need to discuss them with great care before we proceed. The Government's position on the imposition of a single currency is clear: it is not acceptable.

Mrs. Peacock: After the recent turmoil and my right hon. Friend's uniting of the party, does he agree that his objective of a classless society in the future will be better served by a Conservative Government led by him than by the socialism offered by the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to agree entirely with my hon. Friend about that. We need to continue to build on what has been achieved in the past 11 years to make this an open society of opportunity. The Government propose to do that.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Prime Minister in his recent meteoric rise has shown great dignity and pride in his humble origins. What priority will he now give to the problem of homelessness which he inherited from his predecessor? In particular, will he look at the issues of cardboard cities, people who live in damp homes and those who have no hope of a roof over their heads?

The Prime Minister: Everyone is entitled to dignity and pride. The Government's policies will endeavour to ensure that they can attain them.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: May I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box?
Given the record rate of growth in the economy over the past 10 years, and as my right hon. Friend was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who relieved 6 million non-taxpayers of the need to pay tax on their savings at source, does he agree that the next decade of opportunity crucially depends on further tax reductions and further savings incentives of exactly the sort that have so reinvigorated the country in the past 10 years?

The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that I certainly favour further tax reductions when they are affordable and it is prudent to make them. I am extremely keen to see the growth of savings for two reasons: first, to provide the base from which the investment we need in the

1990s will come and, secondly, for the security and independence that savings give individuals and their families.

Mr. Blunkett: Earlier this week, the right hon. Gentleman's former boss, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), described the poll tax as unworkable and politically catastrophic, whereas his predecessor as Prime Minister said that we had already had a fundamental review of the poll tax. Which of those two conflicting opposites has the Prime Minister advised the new Secretary of State to adopt in the new fundamental review of the poll tax to which he referred earlier?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made it entirely clear on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box that when any new charge of this sort was introduced, it would need to be kept under review. That is what we are doing.

Mr. Shersby: At the commencement of his Administration, will my right hon. Friend declare continuing support for the police in their difficult task of maintaining law and order?

The Prime Minister: The police do a magnificent job in this country, often in difficult circumstances. I have no hesitation whatever in assuring my hon. Friend that I have the greatest admiration for the way they behave.

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Patchett: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, he is his own man, may I ask him to say in what way his policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

The Prime Minister: I am my own man and on that basis I see no need to beat my chest and tell the hon. Gentleman. Let him wait and see what we do.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Hicks: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend as Prime Minister. May I invite him to take some advice from a female colleague in relation to inner cities? Does he agree that to achieve his aim of a classless Britain, which is highly commendable, the Government need to give the highest priority to inner cities? Will he afford me the honour as soon as possible of coming to Wolverhampton and giving me the opportunity to demonstrate our success and illustrate the contraints of municipal socialism, which continues to deny choice and opportunity?

The Prime Minister: I find that an irresistible invitation. I am familiar with the problems of the inner cities. I regard them as a matter of great importance and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will bend his formidable energies to that problem.

Mr. Robert Hughes: With regard to the Prime Minister's desire for a classless society and social mobility, will he explain why there are no women in his Cabinet, or is the only woman in his Cabinet the back-seat driver?

The Prime Minister: In recent years, in all aspects of life in this country, women have been taking a higher profile: in the law, in commerce, in the civil service, in industry and in politics—[Interruption.]—and that will continue. As those women would wish it to be, they will reach the top on merit—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Oh yes, and if the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find women aplenty in top positions in my Government. Indeed, if he had waited awhile, perhaps even to the end of today, he would not have asked that question.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gill: I endorse the congratulations of my west midlands colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). My right hon.
Friend the Prime Minister will know of the tremendous support that exists for him in the west midlands. When my right hon. Friend visits Ludlow next July, will he take time to visit the Lady Forester memorial hospital in Much Wenlock, where Mrs. Major was born? He will find local people working hard to take over the management of their local hospital for the benefit of the local community.

The Prime Minister: I am certainly looking forward to visiting Much Wenlock. It is true that my wife was born at that hospital, so I have a good reason for looking forward to visiting it.

Mr. Radice: As a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming Prime Minister? Now that he is Prime Minister, can he say whether the British economy is in recession?

The Prime Minister: As I have told the hon. Gentleman in the past, if he takes the classic definition of recession, it is never possible to determine whether we are in a recession until after the figures are available. As I have told the House more than once, I expect a small downturn in output for a brief period, but we shall be back in a growth pattern during the passage of next year, with inflation well down.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill.
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the 1991 EC budget. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the debts of Overseas Government (Determination of Relevant Percentage) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER—Opposition Day (1st Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Abolition of the Poll Tax".
Motion relating to the National Health Service (Local Health Councils) (Scotland) Regulations.
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on development in the European Community on a Government motion.
FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 10 DECEMBER—Second Reading of Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.

[Tuesday 4 December

Relevant European Community documents


(a) COM(90) 121
Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991


(b) 8182/90
Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the Financial Year 1991


(c) 9865/90
The European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-xxxi (1989–90), para 6
 (b) HC 29-i (1990–91) 
 (c) No report.]

Dr. Cunningham: I congratulate the Leader of the House on maintaining his place in the Cabinet, and I look forward to working with him on matters pertaining to the House of Commons.
Has the Leader of the House seen the alarming reports in today's press about large scale redundancies in British Aerospace? If the sad reports are confirmed, and given the devastation to employment that the redundancies will cause, may we have an urgent statement next week from Ministers responsible for the aerospace industry?
Has the Leader of the House had the chance to reflect on the commitment made by his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), and the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there would be a full day's debate this autumn on economic and monetary union before the intergovernmental conference? Are the Government now reneging on those commitments to the House and to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee? If not, when

do the Government propose to provide the second day for that debate, since the debate next week is about political changes in the Community?
Finally, I urge the Leader of the House to discuss with the new Chief Whip the possibility that, when we table a motion to abolish the poll tax next Wednesday, his right hon. and hon. Friends may have a free vote.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about co-operation on matters relating to the House of Commons. As I told him only a short while ago, I look forward to working with him on all matters relating to reforms and other issues of concern to the House, taking into account the various reports that we receive from various committees. I am grateful for his approach to these matters.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about British Aerospace are a matter for the company. If there are changed market conditions, it is for the company to decide how to react to them. But I have noted what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I am not sure that there was a specific commitment to a debate on European economic and monetary union, but if it is agreeable to Mr. Speaker it will be possible to refer to some of these matters in next Thursday's debate. I accept, however, that there should be a full day's debate on the subject; when it is held is a matter to be discussed through the usual channels.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members will be united in the position that they adopt in next Wednesday's debate.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to speak to the Foreign Secretary about the tantalising thoughts that he expressed about reforming the business of the House if he were to become Prime Minister? While that is still fresh in his mind, may we begin to examine the timetabling and office accommodation of this place—and all the other aspects that make it an inefficient organisation and not an organisation for the 1990s?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of various reports on these matters. Progress is being made on accommodation; as my hon. Friend will know, Bridge street phase 1 is proceeding and I am keen that it should keep on target. A number of reports on matters concerning the House are before us at the moment and I am anxious to pursue them. The Government's position will be made clear in due course. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I are keen to ensure that we make progress on matters that are the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission as well. I cannot say whether it will be possible to reach agreement on all of them, but I intend to take them forward. I pay tribute, as I did in the Queen's Speech debate, to my predecessor for all that he did in the cause of House of Commons reform.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Leader of the House will be aware that yesterday a Foreign Office Minister said that the Department was looking into reports of a speech made by the first secretary at the British embassy in Washington to a meeting in Boston in which he seemed to contradict at least five separate points of Government policies toward Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ensure that there is a


statement to the House, in view of the detrimental effects of that speech on confidence and on the prospects for investment by America?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly look into the matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: When will the Government announce the repeal of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows of my interest in these matters. I think that it will be a beneficial Act, so the answer, as far as I am concerned, is that it will not be.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to welcome the report published yesterday by Sir Robin Ibbs and to announce a debate on the welcome prospect of the House being able to take control of the building in which we work?
Tomorrow is St. Andrew's day and marks the publication by the Scottish constitutional convention of its blueprint for a Scottish Parliament, so will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the new Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House next week with his response, and to show a welcome change of heart by the Government? Without such a change of heart, his party's policy is liable to be the one that leads to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I therefore see no need for a statement. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the Ibbs report; because of other events this week, it did not receive much prominence in the press, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will read it and let us have their views. I think that it has important implications for the future administration and financing of the House, as I have already made clear in a written answer, and I hope that we shall be able to debate the report when the process is complete.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right. hon. Friend aware that, as one of those who voted consistently against the community charge on Second and Third Reading of the legislation, I strongly welcome—as do many of my colleagues—the Government's new commitment to review the charge fundamentally?
Do not both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) agree that the House should be able so to manage the politics of this country that we can find a method of local government finance that has nothing whatever to do with party politics and reaches across the political divide? Will my right hon. Friend at least give me an assurance that he will try to achieve that objective?

Mr. MacGregor: I see little chance of that; but my hon. Friend knows what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said about further consideration of the community charge. He will also know that we have already spent a great deal of time reviewing the charge, and that measures are in the pipeline. There will be a number of opportunities to debate those matters next week.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, with the change of Prime Minister, there is any change in the prospects of

haemophiliacs who have contracted the AIDS virus through contaminated blood products in the national health service? Is this not a wonderful opportunity to end the legal battle and to seek a fair and honourable settlement? May we have a statement next week, please?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have told the House before, we have always accepted the strong moral argument in favour of the haemophiliacs, which is why we have made £34 million available for ex gratia payments and promised to keep that figure under review. I should stress again, however, that the Government do not accept liability, and will resist any settlement that implies admission of negligence.

Sir Alan Glyn: Following yesterday's statement about the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to arranging a full-scale debate on that subject before Christmas?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend has said, a statement was made in the House yesterday. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would wish to come to the House in the event of any developments that required further statements or other methods of discussing the matter in the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement about industrial relations in the coal mining industry? Is he aware that, since the end of the strike, the National Union of Mineworkers—which is the largest trade union in the mining industry—has been refused permission to negotiate with British Coal? If the Government are talking about equality of opportunity, surely it is high time that a directive was issued by the Secretary of State allowing negotiations to take place.

Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that is a matter about which I should ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement next week.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), is the Leader of the House aware that the statement attributed to the first secretary to the British embassy was most damaging and has done great harm in the United Kingdom in relation to business investment in Northern Ireland? For the secretary to say that the Government were pushing the Fair Employment Agency to bring sacrificial lambs to the altar was an insult to every employer of labour in Northern Ireland.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement to the House on this vital subject?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen the statement so I do not know what was said and do not wish to comment on it. However, as I said earlier, I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House set aside time at an early date for a full debate on the condition of the voluntary sector social services organisations? The Government are always praising them. This week, however, three groups—the Hornsey centre, which provides conductive training for children with cerebral palsy, the Royal National Institute for the Blind's braille service and Tower Hamlets advanced technological


training centre, which does wonderful work in an area where there is 25 per cent. unemployment—are all in serious financial trouble. The latter organisation receives funding from the European social fund. As the regulations have been changed, the cheque has to be processed by the Department of Employment. It has already waited for 11 months but has still not received its money.

Mr. MacGregor: The Government have constantly drawn attention to and supported the work of the voluntary sector. Moreover, there has been a substantial increase in funding for a large number of charitable bodies and voluntary sector organisations. Significant tax changes have also greatly increased the amount of money that flows from voluntary and corporate giving to the voluntary sector. Ours is a record of strong support in ways other than just making statements of support. We provide material support as well.
I know that there is a problem about braille. Nevertheless, having looked at the demand on resources that is faced by the Department which funds braille, and having taken into account the fact that the Royal National Institute for the Blind has been successful in raising funds, it did not seem to be a priority to continue to fund that operation as it had been funded in the past. There does not seem to be a case, therefore, for a debate on the subject next week.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that we have a debate as soon as possible on a motion of confidence in the Government to tempt the Leader of the Opposition back to the Dispatch Box? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more exposure the Leader of the Opposition gets the better it will be for Conservative Members? Does he not also agree that, judging by the looks on the faces of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the purpose of business questions.

Mr. MacGregor: I can see why my hon. Friend is tempted, but we recently held a debate of that kind which resulted in a resounding victory for the Government.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the need for a debate on British Aerospace's disgraceful announcement today of 4,500 redundancies. In that debate we ought to be able to question the Ministry of Defence on the need for alternative work and contracts so that defence workers do not have to pay the price of defence cuts. In preparation for such a debate, may I ask the Leader of the House to read an article in the last edition of the Sunday Times in which remarks were made by Professor Roland Smith, the chairman of British Aerospace? He said that, unless Government policies were changed, by the end of next year 10 per cent. of United Kingdom plc would be in receivership. Who is responsible for that—the former Prime Minister or the former Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already dealt with the business of the House on that matter, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is completely hypocritical in his approach to this matter. From the rumours that I have heard, it would

appear that if there were to be changed market conditions they would relate to the fact that, with the ending of the cold war, there was not need for the same degree of expenditure on defence. That is the problem that will face the company, if it goes that way. Given all the hon. Gentleman's remarks about defence, he really cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to get my bit in first.

Mr. Nellist: Policies can be hypocritical, not people.

Mr. Speaker: Of course policies can be hypocritical, not people; the hon. Gentleman is quite right. However, the purpose of business questions is to ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider making time available next week for a debate or for a statement. It is not the purpose of business questions to make speeches that might be made if that debate were granted. It takes up a lot of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am sure that the Leader of the House did not call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) a hypocrite.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall,North): He did.

Mr. Speaker: If he did, will the Leader of the House withdraw it, please?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly withdraw on that point. Perhaps I can phrase it more accurately: attitudes to policy can reveal hypocrisy.

Sir Dudley Smith: In view of developments in the Gulf crisis and further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), will my right hon. Friend guarantee time for a debate, when it is appropriate and as things evolve, if only to allow hon. Members on both sides to stand up and be counted?

Mr. MacGregor: We had better wait and see what happens. It will be a matter for discussion through the usual channels, if the need arises.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Leader of the House aware of the negotiations taking place between Yorkshire Water and York health authority about the possibility of transferring pathology services from the health authority to the water authority? Will he arrange for the Minister responsible to investigate that and put an end to this crazy system? May we have a statement about it next week?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure about a statement, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he wishes to bring that issue before the House, there are other opportunities for doing so.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend look more urgently into the speech made by the first secretary in Washington? It was reported in the British press on Monday and I drew it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the same day. If it is correct, surely it should have been the subject of an immediate statement to the House because it represents a


change of Government policy. If it was not correct, it should have been disavowed immediately. Why has there been no action until now?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already explained the action I propose to take. In addition, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the extraordinary lack of balance shown by the media during the past two or three weeks? Is he aware that night after night we have been bombarded with Tory Back-Bench Members, many of whom we have never seen before in the House? They have been able to make a three-week party political broadcast. The Leader of the House might think that his party was a recipient during that phase, but it is unhealthy in a democracy. It does not make for good debate when the Opposition are not even allowed to appear on television. In the interests of democracy, I should have thought that the Leader of the House would agree that we needed to look at the question of balance.

Mr. MacGregor: It is for the media to decide what they regard as important news events. If the hon. Lady feels so strongly about it, there is a remedy open to her.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend has been urged to announce a debate on the community charge. As one who voted for it, may I press him to do that? Clearly, as our new Prime Minister has said it needs to be looked at fundamentally, I am sure that many voters in the north of England would welcome an opportunity for it to be reconsidered.

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our position clear this afternoon. We shall be spending two days next week debating community charge matters.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week on the serious condition of Polaris submarines? There are cracks in the cooling coils of the pressurised water reactors that operate them and they may be causing potential damage to the crew. In spite of a Ministry of Defence cover-up upstairs in Committee, we do not at present have a nuclear deterrent. As the Government are keen on supporting the United Nations these days, will they support the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, withdraw Polaris and scrap the Trident programme?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no question of that. Our view on submarines has been made clear. No submarine would be allowed to visit a civilian or a naval port or go to sea if it were considered unsafe to do so.

Mr. Michael Jack: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the first question put to him by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about British Aerospace, 6,500 of my constituents will be worried about the company's announcement on Monday; but they will recognise also that it must decide its commercial future. If a statement is thought appropriate, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it contains a full reference to the many billions of pounds that the Government have already spent with British Aerospace, the support they are giving to

export contracts, and the context in which British Aerospace views its future in terms of Britain's future defence policy?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a number of relevant points, and they would certainly be for consideration in any statement or exchanges in the House.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on the enormous profits announced yesterday by the north-west water authorities, showing that they enjoyed a 667 per cent. increase in profits on the payments made by my constituents and others? Is it not disgraceful that taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise private companies in that way?

Mr. MacGregor: Consumers, shareholders and everyone else will benefit from the privatisation of the water industry, including from an environmental point of view.

Mrs. Dunwoody: But not consumers.

Mr. MacGregor: Consumers too; I made that clear. I see no likelihood of a statement being made on that subject next week.

Mr. David Porter: In the light of the statement made yesterday by the European Commissioner responsible for fisheries that the EEC fishing fleet ought to be reduced by as much as 40 per cent., particularly in the North sea, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made next week so that we may ascertain whether the British Government will move on the issue of decommissioning?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, I had ministerial responsibility for such matters for a number of years, and I well understand the situation. We are concerned about the decline in fish stocks, particularly in the North sea, and I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges that it is important to avoid overfishing. It is in the industry's long-term interests that that issue should be addressed.
We have taken the lead in the Community in pressing for improved conservation, and we understand that the Commission has just issued a communication identifying major problems in the Community fishing industry. However, we have no proposals yet, and that is relevant to whether or not there should be a statement next week. The Council of Fisheries Ministers will address the prospects for 1991 at a meeting on 19 December. Although the volume of fish landed this year is lower, its total value is higher. I cannot promise a statement next week, because it is important that we should have something to consider. Nevertheless, I agree that the House ought to debate the matter before the Council meeting on 19 December.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on Leicestershire health authority's intolerable decision to stop supplying free incontinence aids to elderly people in residential homes? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that decision has been denounced by Leicestershire Members of Parliament of all parties? Although I fully understand the problems that confront the health authority as a result of the Government's wicked cuts in the county's health provision, does not the Leader of the House agree that its decision is mean, nasty and cruel?

Mr. MacGregor: We are already spending some £30 billion on the health service, and an additional £3 billion will be spent next year. There have been massive increases in health service funding in recent years, so I reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's overall charge.
As to the particular issue that he raised, I cannot promise a statement next week because it is fundamentally a matter for the health authority. However, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just shown, there are other ways of raising the matter in the House.

Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tragic event that occurred in my constituency when a 17-year-old girl died from overdrinking in an illegal drinking den, known as shabangs? Will he find time for the House to debate the prosecution of such clubs, even to the extent of confiscating the property that they occupy? It is difficult for the police to prosecute drinking dens because the proprietors move from place to place, but we must at long last get to grips with this problem.

Mr. MacGregor: I am very sorry to hear of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know that a Bill relevant to the points that he makes is to come before the House, and it may be appropriate to raise such issues during its Committee stage. Meanwhile, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I see no opportunity to debate that subject in Government time next week.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As there is to be a major debate next week on the poll tax, is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to establish through the office of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Scotland exactly what refinements the Government have in mind? For example, will there be a facility for a 100 per cent. rebate? Surely it will be important in that debate for us to balance, if not the exact details, then the general thrust of the Government's policy on this matter against whatever variation on the rates to which the Labour party may be adhering at the moment and against the local income tax philosophy propounded by my party.

Mr. MacGregor: We have already announced several changes to the community charge, some of which still have to go through and require parliamentary action. We are taking action on two matters on Monday next week. If there are any further changes, I am sure that they will be announced at the appropriate time. Quite a lot of measures are already going through the House concerning a review of the community charge.

Mr. Rupert Allason: When my right hon. Friend announced the business for next week, he omitted to mention a debate on tourism. Does he agree that such a debate is long overdue? Although many people, particularly those in my constituency, appreciate the greater weighting given to visitor bed nights in the new calculations for the standard spending assessment, does he not think that it is high time that we had such a debate? Will he assure the House that there will be a debate before the Christmas recess, bearing in mind that this important industry is now the largest earner of foreign currency for this country?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the industry's importance and the great successes that it has had under the Government. There is a great deal of business for us to do between now and the Christmas recess—next week's business shows that—and I cannot see any prospect of a debate on that subject in Government time.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House allow a discussion next week in Government time on security and safety at Pinderfields general hospital, in my constituency? On Monday this week, two doctors were murdered in their office at the hospital. It will be difficult to replace them, in their homes and in the service. As my request for a statement could not be agreed to, may we have a discussion on security and safety? If that cannot take place in Government time, will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House on the question of security and safety at Pinderfields general hospital?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House shares my horror at what happened to the two consultants and would wish to offer sincere sympathy to the relatives of both. I cannot say that I can find time for a debate in Government time next week on these matters. I shall have to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether a statement in that case would be appropriate. Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows that there are other ways in which he can raise these matters.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on housing finance so that the House can consider the serious abuse of the housing budget by the former Ealing Labour council which is forcing unwarranted rent increases on council tenants in Ealing? This is happening because the Labour council totally abused the system, as has been proven. This matter should be brought before the House so that such abuses by the Labour party can be fully examined at local level in Ealing before there is any danger from it at national level.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. I know that he will find other opportunities to make it effectively at local level and national level and to draw attention to any lessons that are to be learnt. I regret that the business of the House is pretty full next week, and I do not see much prospect of debating the matter then.

Mr. Derek Conway: Before Wednesday's debate, will my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to place in the Library a comparative chart showing, by local authority area, total spending this year as against last year and comparative manpower levels? That will enable the House to see for itself that the level and unpopularity of the community charge are related to local government overmanning and over expenditure, principally in areas such as Shropshire that are controlled by Labour councillors.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The vast bulk of overspending takes place in Labour local authorities. I will draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

British Aerospace Factory, Preston

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the projected closure of the major British Aerospace factory at Preston, with enormous job losses of the order of 4,500.
The matter is specific because it relates to one company which is of unique importance to the local economy of the Preston area. If the closure and the redundancies go ahead, it will put a specific blight on my area. Preston borough council calculates the local unemployment could rise from 8 per cent. to as much as 15 per cent. as a direct effect. In addition, there would be a massive indirect effect on many other jobs, including retailing and all the service sector.
The matter is important for all those reasons and for the message that is given about British manufacturing when the largest British manufacturing company resorts to closures and to redundancies. The company should instead ensure continued work by making a transition from an over-reliance on arms production to civil aircraft and to other peaceful products, and the Government should help it to do so. It is important that the end of the cold war should be seen as an opportunity to expand civil aircraft production, for example; it must not become a disaster for my area. The matter is also important because British Aerospace is a reservoir of skills which must not be dissipated.
The matter is urgent because the House should express a view immediately, before decisions become irrevocable. There is an urgent need for the Government, the company and the unions to come together to find a constructive way forward. The unions would do that, but will the company and the Government? Until now the Government have refused to accept any responsibility for reductions in defence employment. A debate would give them the chance to take a new direction, although it is probably over-optimistic to expect them to do so. For the people of Preston, this is a matter of the utmost urgency. They will expect this House to debate the matter immediately.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the projected closure of the major British Aerospace factory at Preston, with enormous job losses of the order of 4,500.
As the hon. Lady knows, I have to consider the criteria of Standing Order No. 20. I have listened with care to what she has said, but I do not consider that the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20.I hope that she will have other opportunities to bring the matter before the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day — Development Board for Rural Wales Bill

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1

INCREASE OF FINANCIAL LIMIT

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The purpose of this single-clause Bill is to raise the present financial limit of the Development Board for Rural Wales from £100 million to £175 million.
During our Second Reading debate last night, there appeared to be some confusion in hon. Member's minds about the precise meaning of the words "financial limit". The function of the financial limit is to limit the public funding of the board so that the scale and nature of its activities can be re-examined by Parliament at regular intervals. The limit has been increased on two occasions—most recently in 1981 to £100 million under section 2(3) of the Industry Act 1981, which amended section 12(2) of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976.
I should explain that section 12(2) of the 1976 Act set a limit of £25 million. That was raised to £40 million in 1980 and increased to its current level of £100 million by the Industry Act 1981. The financial limit established by the 1981 Act has remained in place by virtue of the fact that some £33 million of the board's national loans fund debt, which at one time counted towards the limit, was written off in 1986. Similar action was taken at the same time in respect of the English new town authorities.
At the current rate of expenditure, the financial limit of £100 million will be reached during the financial year 1991–92. Board expenditure counted against this limit comprises grant in aid, housing subsidies, advances from the national loans fund and other borrowing to finance the board's activities.
When raising a financial limit, it is customary to provide an increase that should suffice for five years. We therefore propose to raise the DBRW's limit from £100 million to £175 million.
The Bill specifies a single new limit rather than a two-stage limit with power to implement the higher figure by affirmative order. The latter approach was adopted in the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, but the Industry Act 1981 removed the higher limit in the 1976 Act on the ground that further financial needs should be provided for in primary legislation rather than by order. The Government regard it is desirable to maintain consistency in this matter.
The main activities of the board are to provide financial assistance to business in the form of grants and loans, to provide sites and premises for industry, to assist in the marketing of the area for tourism and industrial purposes and in product marketing, and to provide advisory services and training. Assistance is available to enterprise in the land, food, craft, manufacturing, tourism and science sectors. In addition to its economic development activities, the development board supports a wide range of social development projects, including the provision of support


for the Welsh language and its culture and for the construction of houses for letting under the New Towns Act 1965 as amended in 1981.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister is kindly fleshing out some of the matters that we discussed last night. Let me ask him a question related to the announcement by the Secretary of State yesterday. He may be able to answer it now. If not, perhaps he will ensure that it is answered later. Is the extra £1 million for the special rural action programme in 1991–92 included in the public expenditure White Paper for 1990 and, if so, under what head?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall certainly try to clarify that point. Last night my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking about the new money—Opposition Members are fond of talking about new money—amounting to £1·4 million which is to be available on top of this year's figure for the board in the coming year.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: We agreed all this last night. My advisers agreed with the Secretary of State's advisers that it was new money. The official Opposition could not work it out.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). It is no wonder that we are such good neighbours. If it will bear repeating, there has been an increase in Welsh Office support for the Development Board for Rural Wales from £.12·7 million to £14·1 million. I hope that that at least makes everything clear. There is no doubt that the development board has achieved considerable success in many of its activities. On Second Reading we covered many matters both inside and outside the board's remit.
There are no financial or manpower implications in the Bill. It will simply provide cover for the board's receipt of Government funds and for its borrowing. No change will be made to the board's powers and there are no implications for the European Community.

Mr. Barry Jones: Last night the Secretary of State skirted rather gingerly over the problem of housing. There is some classic evidence of the build-up of an intolerable situation. The problem is exacerbated by the emergence of the poll tax. For instance, in Brecon there are 601 applicants on the housing waiting list. On 3 October 1980 the housing stock was 3,962. In 1990 it is only 2,660, which is a 35 per cent. reduction. The others have been sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Up to 50 per cent. of housing stock where the right to buy applies has been sold.
The sale of council houses has been quicker in villages. There are some villages in which 100 per cent. of the stock has been sold. One example in the area is Tretower. It also has 55 housing applications.
Some of the houses that have been bought under the right-to-buy scheme are now being resold as holiday homes. If housing associations built 50 new properties a year, it would still take 12 years to house those presently on the waiting list. At present rates of new build becoming available, it will take 18 years to house those on the waiting list.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is referring to my constituency. I have not heard him mention development board houses. In Tretower almost half the conventional housing stock are second homes. There are no development board houses in Tretower. Does the hon. Gentleman know how many DBRW houses there are in Brecknock? There is an inadequate number. The hon. Gentleman is talking about local government housing stock. He is quite right. Fifty per cent. have been sold off, but we need to stretch the remit of the DBRW housing stock to give it more flexibility.

Mr. Jones: I am certainly more than willing to listen to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, who knows the area well.
The local authority says that if it could use all capital receipts, it could build 120 new houses. There is little chance of young people who live locally owning their own home, even with a 20 per cent. discount. I am told, and evidence has been submitted to the Select Committee, that in Crickhowell 61 per cent. of the houses have been sold out of a total of 216 and that 84 houses remain. It will be lucky if one house a year is available to be reallocated to people on the waiting list. Apparently there are six homeless families in temporary accommodation and four potentially homeless families in the area.
Housing in rural Wales is an issue of prime importance. Everyone is aware of the problems and of the impact on young marrieds and ordinary people who are really up against it. It is relevant to put it to Ministers that they have not yet tackled the problem effectively. Many tenants do not qualify for housing benefit because of restrictions. I am told that there is no prospect of any new-build accommodation in the borough, that credit approvals are not sufficient and that the authority still needs capital receipts for improvements and repairs.
The health authority in the area previously had houses to rent. That is no longer the case because it has sold them off. It is also said that Powys county authority has a policy of selling its properties in the same way.
The conclusion of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee was, first, that there was a great need for affordable housing for both rent and low-cost purchase—a need which has increased—and, secondly, that the supply of both rented and low-cost housing had diminished. Thirdly, it was concluded that the Tai Cymru rural initiative and the provision of free or reduced-value land either from the local authority or through the planning process would help, but that the key must be recognition of the need to provide funding by subsidy to provide new dwellings.
I hope that Ministers will respond to the serious problem of housing. It is a problem which they have not solved and to which they did not appear to address themselves during yesterday's proceedings. They left the problem largely to the board, which has its problems.
The Secretary of State's speech yesterday contained three essential points. First, he endorsed the board's strategy. Secondly, he acknowledged that the board's finances had been neglected. He bowed to pressure and stumped up the extra £1 million. He said that it was new money. It was gratefully received. Thirdly, the Minister ducked entirely the chief problem in rural Wales today—agriculture. Nowhere in the Secretary of State's speech did I hear a sense of either strategy or urgency. The


National Economic Development Council recently published a report entitled "Work in the Countryside", which predicted a fall of over 9 per cent. in the number of people engaged in agriculture in the United Kingdom during the next 10 years. It estimated that that would mean a loss of over 3,000 jobs in Wales. Some say that the number will be between 3,000 and 7,500. Already Ministers know and I know that the National Farmers Union in Wales is beating tracks to the door of the Secretary of State to tell him that it is deeply worried. No one can gainsay that. There is a sense of crisis in farming, particularly in the upland communities. Yesterday we did not have a response to that problem.
In Scotland a Minister for rural affairs has been appointed. Has such an appointment been considered by the Welsh Office? There is no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State has a fine professional staff at his disposal. They are good. Some I know well and some I have worked with. Are there enough of them? Given the challenge facing the rural areas of Wales is not there a case for Ministers to devise a strategy and to come forward with some proposals that will show the people of Wales, the upland communities and those who live in rural Wales that the Government mean business? I want Ministers to consider seriously some initiatives. As I said last night, there is a call for more leadership in this sphere.

Mr. Geraint Howells: If the clay comes when the hon. Gentleman holds the reins at the Welsh Office, will agriculture be included in the remit of the Development Board for Rural Wales? Can he give the farming communities and the people of Wales that assurance?

Mr. Jones: I will not make policy on the hoof. The hon. Gentleman knows me too well for that. Nevertheless, I take the emphasis of his intervention. He knows that soon his party, mine and others will have to present their manifestos to the electorate. That is the moment of truth for Ministers as well as for Opposition parties.
I draw to the attention of Ministers the existence of a report by the Institute of Welsh Affairs. I commend it to them. It deals with the impact of inward migration, low birth rates, some heavy unemployment, low incomes and housing demand, which will be increasingly heavy towards the end of the century. It says that a strategy is needed. It wants plans to cope with the significant levels of housing demand. It says that priority should be given to raising low incomes. Ministers should study the report and I hope that it will help them to come to conclusions and to take initiatives.
Will the Minister of State promise to read the recent speech in another place of Baroness White of Rhyrnney, that distinguished ex-public servant who is respected and admired? The Minister will know that some years ago Lady White held the post that he now holds. She may be right to doubt whether Ministers can seriously influence Whitehall and European institutions about rural Wales. My conclusion is that Ministers do not have sufficient influence. They cannot. They are showing that they are overstretched and they may be showing that they are tired. I am saying that they are not giving sufficient leadership in this sphere, though the Minister must not take that as too serious a thrust today.
We recognise the importance of the increase in the financial limit to allow the current plans for funding the

Development Board for Rural Wales to go ahead. That is agreed. We also recognise that an increase in the financial limit does not in itself provide any guide to the future level of expenditure for Government funding.
We are greatly worried by the Government's record on financial support to the development board. Its gross expenditure has fallen dramatically in real terms over the past decade, despite growing social and economic challenges in mid-Wales. Gross expenditure has fallen by nearly 15 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. According to the 1990 public expenditure White Paper, gross expenditure, after taking inflation into account, is planned to fall by 8 per cent. this year. That is an example of short-sighted penny-pinching at the expense of the people of rural Wales.
Yesterday, I heard the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) express concern about Trawsfynydd. I appreciated why he felt it necessary to make those remarks, but the Minister seemed laid back in his response. When the nuclear power station closes, the loss of high status jobs there will have serious consequences. Now is the time for the Government to plan for the future of Trawsfynydd. Will the Minister consider setting up a task force, or at any rate doing something now, long before the closure takes place? The Government should be preparing to take action now, rather than waiting until the closure, and only then giving the impression of animation and preparation. The consequences of closure will be considerable. The Minister must make preparations now.
Trawsfynydd lies amid some wondrous scenery, but not for miles around is there certainty of alternative work. A task force or similar body could consider also the needs of Blaenau Ffestiniog, which is still struggling to come to terms with the consequences of the loss of its staple industry, slate.

Dr. Thomas: In presenting the case for Trawsfynydd, it would be helpful for everybody if the hon. Gentleman would spell out in greater detail what he would do were he sitting on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Jones: The former Labour Government had a good record in these matters. The development agency and the development board stand ready to help communities such as Trawsfynydd and Blaenau Ffestiniog. I am urging the Government to show intiative and to give leadership. Matters in rural Wales are not as good as the Government imply. A town such as Blaenau Ffestiniog, at nearly 1,000 ft above sea level, with about 60 in of rain a year, isolated and with poor communications, requires urgent action. The same applies to other communities in rural Wales.
Rural Wales has been let down by the Government, with the freezing of child benefit, the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings, the cut in housing benefit, soaring mortgate costs, the hated poll tax, the loss of jobs in the Laura Ashley company and the plight of hill farmers. It is fair to say that rural Wales has had enough of the Conservatives, who do not care. A Labour Government will be elected and will restore the fortunes of rural Wales.

Mr. Livsey: There is little that I wish to say because much was said last night, but a number of points come to mind as a result of one or two matters mentioned this afternoon.
The Bill is narrowly drawn. I had hoped to be tabling an amendment now to increase by statutory instrument the funding available to the development board, but I am told that the Bill is so tightly drawn that we cannot table amendments to that effect. It would be good if in future one were able to do that. I hope that that proposal will be considered.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard my opening remarks when I explained the two-tier system of raising the financial limit which pertained before 1981. It was decided that it would be good practice to require primary legislation to raise the limit, rather than being able to do so by order. I think that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House will agree that what we now propose—using primary legislation—is better practice than that previously pursued.

Mr. Livsey: The Minister explains the position precisely. Although we can use that procedure and have a debate, the matter is almost a fait accompli; we cannot change the board's remit.
Many speeches have been made outlining the desirability of giving the board other functions, such as those relating to agriculture, which are important. I hope that in future legislation can be brought in to give the development board more wide-ranging functions. Although we have had a sympathetic ear from the Secretary of State and the Minister, we cannot change the board's remit to include agriculture. We should have that opportunity in the future.
The Minister also mentioned tourism, over which the development board has only limited powers. If this had been a wider-ranging debate, I should have liked to table an amendment to give the board clearer functions in relation to tourism. I understand that those powers are fairly limited at present. In future, will the development board be able to assist in building hotels, which could be leased to local entrepreneurs in various parts of Wales to raise the standard of tourist accommodation? That subject could do with our attention. Tourism is a massive industry in rural Wales and should be stimulated. I believe that the development board might well have the ability to do that.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred to housing, particularly in my constituency. The problems involved when young people try to find housing for rent are legion. The Government have ceased giving local authorities the ability to build houses for rent. Mid-Wales does not have an adequate housing association to provide sufficient housing to meet the demand. There is a Mid Wales housing association but it is extremely small, can obtain few resources and is thus unable to build adequate housing.
One of the development board's functions is to provide houses for key workers but, as I said last night, those houses are often empty for long periods in districts where the demand for rented housing is very great. It seems unsatisfactory that housing for key workers should be empty. That accommodation does not amount to a great deal of housing, and is but a drop in the ocean compared with the demand, yet even those few houses are empty.
I should like more flexibility. The development board should be able to let some of its housing not necessarily to people coming in from outside the area but to people working in the area. There are families in my constituency who have to live with their parents in council houses because the council housing stock has been largely sold off. Sometimes parents and a son and daughter-in-law and perhaps two or three children have to live in a three-bedroomed council house. That is unsatisfactory, especially since those people work in the local economy. The development board, with the Welsh Office, should be able to create a larger housing association in mid-Wales—if that is the way the Government want to finance housing for rent—to try to satisfy the insatiable demand for housing.
This enormous problem is causing the outward migration of some of our youngest and most able people.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Like my colleagues, I welcome the increase in the borrowing limit from £100 million to £175 million and the extra finance—it will rise from £12·7 million to £14·1 million.
The annual report of the development board and the evidence that it has presented from time to time to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs show that it is doing excellent work. Both the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency are interventionist agencies set up to stimulate new jobs—

Mr. Paul Murphy: By a Labour Government.

Mr. Williams: Indeed. The agency was set up to stimulate new jobs and enterprises and to provide a stronger backbone in rural areas.
Last night we heard the Secretary of State say that the development board's budget of £12 million a year serves to generate more than 1,000 new jobs or to safeguard old ones. That works out at about £10,000 per job, which is remarkably good value for money—the more so since the multiplier effect means that other jobs live off the salaries created by the new jobs.
Unfortunately, my constituency, despite being the second largest in Wales and very rural, is not included in the board's boundaries. The development board covers 40 per cent. of Wales, but large parts of Gwynedd, Clwyd and Dyfed are not included. My predecessor as Member for Carmarthen, Dr. Roger Thomas, felt strongly about this. I remember going on a trip in the mid-1980s with the then shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Alec Jones, who was the hon. Member for Rhondda, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). We went to Newcastle Emlyn to point out to the shadow Secretary of State that Carmarthen district and the Dinefwr borough exhibit similar geographical features and should be included. Why is Lampeter included, but not Llanybydder? Why is Llandysul included, but not Newcastle Emlyn? Why are not Llandeilo and Llandovery included when Llandrindod and Llanwrtyd are? These are all similar towns, but, by being excluded from the areas of the development board, they are missing out on some of the benefits it can offer.
The WDA does excellent work in our area, but the development board has a broader remit. It is allowed to spend more of its money on social improvements and tourism facilities. I should like the board to have both


more money and broader boundaries. I hope that any future Labour Government—and even this Government—will consider redrawing those boundaries.
4.45 pm
In the past 10 years the problems of rural areas have become immeasurably worse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said earlier. Rural depopulation presents a severe problem. Young people are leaving our countryside and looking for work in the towns—sometimes not even in Wales but across the border.
We hear a great deal about inward migration in Welsh-speaking Wales, but that is only the other side of the coin. I was brought up in the countryside outside Carmarthen where it was taken almost as a fact of life in the 1950s and 1960s that small farms had to amalgamate, that jobs would be lost and that people would move into the towns. The Welsh language suffered as a result of that emigration. This downhill slide became a haemorrhage during the recession of 1979 –81, when masses of manufacturing jobs were lost in rural areas and unemployment reached a peak of more than 20 per cent. in Dyfed. Between 1983 and 1988 unemployment there averaged 16 per cent.—that is what led to the haemorrhage of young people.
These people have been replaced and our population is growing, but it is different. I welcome retired people and people with new skills in craft industries, but that sort of population brings its own problems with it, particularly for the Welsh language.
Government policies in the past 10 years have hit rural areas disproportionately hard. There have been cuts in public spending on transport and road building. Not enough has been invested in road improvements or the surface of roads. There are terrible housing shortages. Rural villages contain run-down, unfit housing and there are acute problems of homelessness. We need far more public spending on housing, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said.
The poll tax has hit rural areas disproportionately hard, too. Small villages have few services, so they generally have low rateable values and contribute less to local government finance. In a sense the poll tax subsidises towns and penalises rural inhabitants. A gentleman in Llansawel wrote to me 12 months ago pointing out that his rates bill was just £80. He is a pensioner and he and his wife now have to pay poll tax of well over £300—yet they will enjoy no new services in their remote rural village. They have a very low income, but it is not low enough to qualify for a rebate.
Last night, several hon. Members mentioned low pay. The problem is at its worst in rural areas. I have here some information from the Low Pay Unit—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but last night's was a Second Reading debate and therefore much wider. We are now on clause stand part, and low pay does not relate to the clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his remarks relevant.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, Miss Boothroyd. I stand corrected. I was, however, trying not only to make general points about rural areas, pertaining to my constituency in

particular, but to explain how the development board's work helps to counter the problems and why it should be given more money.
Average male earnings in my county—Dyfed—are lower than those in any other British county and the Government have, as a matter of policy, halved the staff of the wages inspectorate in the past 10 years. More interventionist policies are needed: the Government must take much more direct action to help rural areas.
Spending on roads has also been cut. My constituency desperately needs a road linking the M4 to Ceredigion; as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) will know, the road to Llandyssul, Aberaeron and Aberystwyth has hardly been improved at all in the past few years.
I have already mentioned the mass emigration of young people from Wales, and the inward migration which is proceeding apace. Although I welcome the arrival of people who contribute to the local economy and enrich the life of the area, it has caused serious problems for the Welsh language. I am, of course, very pleased when new arrivals choose to learn Welsh, but the only real way of retaining the language is to keep young people in our Welsh-speaking heartlands.

Dr. Thomas: I do not wish to stray out of order, and I am well aware that the development board does not spend money on an education policy connected with language; it does, however, spend money on a bilingual initiative programme to develop enterprise and business expertise. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that programme would be supported much more effectively in Dyfed and other parts of mid-Wales if he and some of his hon. Friends desisted from undermining the local education authority policy for bilingual teaching there?

Mr. Williams: I am not undermining it; I am seeking—I fear that I am out of order now—to modify it to allow room for choice, and equal opportunities for the Welsh and English languages in rural schools.
I welcome the increased allocations announced in the Bill, but far more needs to be done. Rural areas have had a very rough time over the past 10 years, but, unfortunately, there will need to be a change of Government before there is a change in their fortunes.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Let me comment briefly on the latter remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams): obviously they were in order, Miss Boothroyd, or you would not have allowed him to proceed. Let me tell my hon. Friend—as gently as possible—that some of the recent controversy in Carmarthen has been very destructive. Communities have been divided quite unnecessarily on the subject of the language. My hon. Friend may realise in retrospect that emotive words like "Stalinist" are not appropriate when applied to Dyfed county council.
We all realise how explosive the language issue is in Wales. Welshmen are not divided on religious or ethnic grounds, but the language division is very sharp, and we must not be shy to promote its use or to come to its defence.
Yesterday afternoon, a Conservative Member—talking as English people often do about their language—suggested that it was less important to extend the BBC World Service's Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian sections, which I consider crucial, than to extend English


language broadcasting. He received little support for that view, which typified the arrogance sometimes displayed by English speakers. If I were to start speaking Welsh now, Miss Boothroyd—as I have in the House on a number of occasions—I would be called to order; although other Parliaments can manage quite easily to deal with nine or 10 languages, in this Chamber the Welsh language has the same status as riotous behaviour, and I would be thrown out if I persisted in using it. This is now the only Parliament that Wales has, but perhaps the position will change when we have our own Parliament.
The people now migrating to Wales are different from those of my generation. In 1851, my forebear Morris Flynn and his family were stoned by the locals on their arrival in Wales. That was the greeting given to him and his family of five—three had been lost in the potato famine—as they walked down Bute street in Cardiff. As far as I know, there is no potato famine in Burton-on-Trent, and I do not believe that the Securitate in Guildford is persecuting the people and forcing them into Wales. People are coming to Wales looking for a better life, although many are leading a good life already. They are attracted by the beauty of the countryside and the lack of pollution.
None the less, we have the right to stand up and fight for our language. We remember what the old man of Pencader said about "this corner of the world", and we know that we are the only people who can defend our unique language. It is a shame that we should react with such venom to a foolish thing said by a frail, elderly visionary who gave so much to our country—although he certainly went too far. We should look to our visionaries, and to those who have the soul of our nation at heart, rather than indulging in the spiteful and petty controversies that have marred this last summer.
I hope that people in Carmarthen can come together, recognising the need to protect the Welsh language. The English language is not threatened; it is used throughout the world. Welsh, however, is in the perilous state in which all minority languages find themselves when all their speakers also speak a majority language. We must not be reticent; we must boldly defend the Welsh language.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen spoke of the poverty in the area covered by the development board. We hear very little about rural poverty. Let me briefly mention two issues. One is child benefit, which was recently increased. It is a shock to realise that at least 10,000 of the most .deserving families in Wales will not receive the extra £1 because they happen to have suffered a bereavement or serious illness: that is in addition to the 192,000 families throughout Britain who will not receive the benefit because the Government will claw it back. The Government's was an extremely mean act.
The last great ruler who took an interest in the first born, King Herod, was a Thatcherite of the old school. One would not, of course, expect even the present Government to employ the measures that he adopted to save public expenditure.
As we emerge from the dark age of Thatcherism, I hope that policies to help families with children will emerge. The most deserving cases are being cheated outrageously by being deprived of child benefit. Rural housing is a continuing scandal. For the past 40 years, all Governments

provided a wedge of housing in every village throughout the Principality that was cheap to rent. Council houses have disappeared altogether in many villages. Council housing, by providing the choice of cheap housing, led to a balanced economy.
5 pm
My local authority, when it was Labour-controlled, provided council houses in order to create stable, mixed communities. Now, however, it is not run by altruistic people who want to solve problems; it is run by Conservative ideologues whose minds are obsessed with a few simple ideas that drive them on—in many cases, beyond all reason. There are no houses for rent at a reasonable price in some Welsh villages. When they change hands they are sold. Villages are therefore deprived of local labour and they become villages for stockbrokers—already so common in the south of England.
The farming industry faces a crisis. It has to compete with all the development board's activities. The decision that we take on the clause will have an effect on the farming industry. At Question Time today the farming crisis was referred to as a genuine crisis. Nobody is crying wolf. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, rightly, that the crisis does not face the whole of the farming community. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accused me today of trying to split the farming community. It is already split. The grain barons of East Anglia cultivate grain on huge prairies that provide them with huge profits and, in the case of farmers in south Wales, if there are large harvests, they receive huge subsidies. I believe that my hon. Friend said that 80 per cent. of the farming subsidies go to very rich farmers.
Farmers have become the victims of the policies of all parties. We told them that the country must rely on its own resources. They have been provided with subsidies to grow more food. That resulted in this crisis. The medicines of the past have become the diseases of the present. The answer is not to increase subsidies generally but to ensure that they are distributed fairly. Many of the subsidies that now go to rich farmers should come to Wales. The farming industry faces many crises. I commend the Labour party's policies. They would provide an answer to the farming crisis. Production should be scaled down, where necessary, and voluntary agreements should be entered into with the farmers—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a very good run. I must ask hon. Members to remember that we are considering clause I stand part and the functions of the board. It is a narrow clause. This is not a Second Reading debate. The clause relates not to farming and agriculture but to the financial limits of the board.
We have had a good debate; I have been tolerant in allowing hon. Members to range widely, both on Second Reading and, so far, today. Now, however, I must bring it to a halt. In future, hon. Members will not be allowed to range as widely as they have done so far in this clause stand part debate. The hon. Gentleman must, of course, finish what he wants to say, which must be relevant.

Mr. Flynn: That is very kind of you, Miss Boothroyd.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am not at all kind.

Mr. Flynn: On reflection, I must admit that some of my comments were tangential to the main purpose of the clause.
As for the money devoted by the development board to planning purposes in Wales, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales published recently a splendid report. Newport suffers from a particular problem, in that we have a pushy neighbour called Cardiff. Its urban sprawl is spreading like a stain across the fields towards Newport. It has come right up to Newport's border. If Newport had been as permissive as Cardiff over its planning permission, it would no longer have a green ring around it. It would be possible to walk from the civic centre in Newport to the city hall in Cardiff without crossing a field and seeing a blade of grass.
I urge the Welsh Office to consider introducing green belts around our towns. Strangely enough, we do not have them in Wales. Such a ring around our towns would make them much more attractive. That would represent a very good use of the money that is provided for in the clause. We must provide a better future for development board areas and for every other rural area in Wales.

Dr. Thomas: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the generosity that you have shown towards hon. Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It has come to a halt.

Dr. Thomas: I am aware of that. I do not intend to make another Second Reading speech today. One of the reasons why it has turned into such a wide-ranging debate is that we have so few opportunities to debate on the Floor of the House matters relating to Wales. I wish that we could have more such opportunities.
I agree with the Minister of State that it is good to hold primary legislation debates on the Floor of the House, during which we can consider the work of the development board and other agencies. I only wish that the Welsh Office could introduce additional primary legislation, including legislation on language policy. That brings me to the language issue, though in relation to the development board's work, not in relation to Dyfed's education policy. Nevertheless, I commend what was said by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the activities of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
The development board has deliberately focused cultural spending on language policy on business courses, business advice and bilingual handbooks. That has generated a good response in the western communities of Wales. The board's policy is to recruit, as members of staff, bilingual business advisers. The board has used the existing enterprise agencies to carry out work for it on a contract basis. It is therefore able to stimulate the development of an enterprise culture. That is an important part of our overall language development, conservation and enhancement policy.
The Welsh language is spoken by about 500,000 people. It is a minority language. I hope that it will become the language of business activity as well as of cultural activity, as well as being the language of all traditional forms of expression in culture and religion, as well as the language of the schools throughout the national curriculum. The language would then be able to survive in the complex world within which small cultures have to function. I pay tribute to the work of the development board, which 

stimulates the enterprise culture through the medium of the Welsh language. That is a very important part of its work.
Housing expenditure by the development board is limited to providing houses for key workers. The development board is not a general housing agency. Housing agencies have taken over the work of the previous new town development corporations. However, they have been giving their houses away. Houses in new towns have been sold rapidly. That creates housing problems. We need to match the decline in the role of local authorities throughout Wales and the decline in the role of the development board as the new town housing agencies' role is matched by the activities of Tai Cymru.
The Government need to look at the overall Welsh Office housing budget to ensure that the decline in available rented sector property is matched by the work of the housing associations. We need to look at the relevance of the clause to housing policy. There is a relevance to key-worker housing. That is a concept which can be seen to relate to a particular view of development. In the early years of development agencies, not just in mid-Wales but in other areas, activity seemed to be centred on in-moving large capital investment. That is important but it can sometimes be a diseconomy in terms of its effect on the existing network of local businesses. Incoming industries on a large scale can lead to a loss of jobs in the self-employed and small business sectors. We have seen that in some aspects of the development board's work.
Over the years, there have been positive critics of the board looking at supporting an economic, development strategy and at aspects of the strategy which might he improved. Those critics have stressed that the overdevelopment of Newtown and the growth town strategy has sometimes resulted in the appearance of overdevelopment in some areas and underdevelopment in others—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) agrees with me and I am sure that he will want to develop that.
I have mentioned Antur Dwyryd and Antur Teifi so I must mention Antur Penllyn and the activity in Bala. There we have a local authority and local entrepreneurs who are already successful on their own patch working with the development board to establish an atmosphere in which small local businesses can thrive. It creates an atmosphere in which young people can produce ideas for new enterprise, discuss their business plans and find support throughout the development of their business with the assistance of local banks, and so on. Many of us have argued for several years for that type of small scale networking enterprise and it is good to see the board pursuing it.
On Second Reading I received a firm answer from the Secretary of State about the future of the board. He made it clear that there would be no messing about between the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. There will be a clear understanding that both authorities have a statutory responsibility and will have to work together. It was helpful to receive such a statement. However, I should like the Minister to deal with the possible privatisation of some of the board's activities. Concern has been expressed to me by those who follow the board's activities that there may be an intention to privatise existing complexes, industrial sites or other consultancy or development activities that the board has undertaken directly in the past. That may result in the


officers responsible for such activities being less directly accountable. There have recently been internal management changes to the structure of the board.
Some of us are concerned that the social development aspect of the board's work is not receiving the high profile that it received in the past. We want an assurance from the Minister about the broad spectrum of spending. The social development money stands alongside the various directly enterprising schemes, building schemes and infrastructure schemes. We want an assurance that the social development money has the same value in terms of the board's policies as in the past. We have discussed that with the chairman and officials of the board and we shall have an opportunity to do so again fairly soon when the board will be visiting the House and giving us a presentation. However, I should be happy to have the Welsh Office view. It is important to emphasise the entrepreneurial and commercial activity of the board, but the social profile is also an important part of integrated rural development and we want it to be maintained.—[ Interruption.] I am pleased to see that my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) agree with me.
5.15 pm
I want to deal with the board's spending in the northern Meirionnydd area and its relevance to Trawsfynydd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) for raising that issue again today. I want to see the Welsh Office taking a longer look at the issue in consultation with the Department of Energy and Nuclear Electric. None of us wants to see premature closure of a functioning plant. However, that plant can function as a Magnox nuclear power station only within the tightest possible constraints and controls on environmental policy as governed by the nuclear installations inspectorate. We do not want an artificial extension of the life of the plant. Therefore, as I said last night, as a result of the closure we shall be facing the loss of 400 to 500 jobs directly. Obviously, that has a multiplier effect and there will be about 1,200 job losses overall in the local economy.
The response to that is not to look for another major utility of that sort because the economy of north-west Wales—Gwynedd—has been dependent upon major construction projects and big utilities in cycles. That is not necessarily good for the economy in the long term. We need to look for a resource-balanced economy in terms of its ability to sustain itself internally and have a good relationship with surrounding economies and regions. The answer is to take further the approach already adopted by the development board in the way in which it has ensured the development of in-moving new capital investment and encouraged grass roots networking enterprise within local communities. We need to match that with adequate funding. We want to ensure that the development board becomes the lead agency in replacing job losses at Trawsfynydd. The board is able to do that. The WDA and Welsh Development International are important. We are hoping for further international investment beyond Clwyd and into Gwynedd as a result of the Wyn Roberts memorial expressway that is about to be completed.
The Development Board for Rural Wales has as members representatives from local authorities and works closely with local authorities. As we know, the

Meirionnydd and Gwynedd districts do not have the resources necessary for industrial promotion in the same way as the board, which is a central Government agency. I should like the Welsh Office to tell us that they are entrusting the task of the lead agency in providing jobs in the Trawsfynydd and northern Meirionnydd area to the board and that the funding will be there to match it.
I was hoping to have teased some new ideas from the Opposition. Unfortunately, I have failed yet again. In the past we have suggested several different models and if Opposition Members have any ideas I am happy to give way.

Mr. Alun Michael: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Labour party idea in the first place. It would be better if he were less petty in his remarks.

Dr. Thomas: I do not wish to be drawn into the history of the development board, but it is well known that it was announced as an idea in 1970 by Viscount Tonypandy, who made that speech at a particular juncture in a general election campaign when Labour was looking for votes in west Wales. I have nothing against that, but we should put the record straight.
I am concerned now not about the future of the board but about finding new ideas from the official Opposition on how jobs can be replaced at Trawsfynydd. I offer the official Opposition that opportunity, but I hear nothing from them.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: When a nuclear power station reaches the end of its life, there follows the enormous task of decommissioning it. We are only just beginning to grapple with that problem in Berkeley. Nuclear experts say—this is why the City took fright when the Government tried to privatise nuclear energy—that that task is many times more difficult than was ever imagined. The budget involved is anything from £300 million to £1 billion, and for 10 years after the closure of a nuclear power station—perhaps even for decades—hundreds of jobs will be involved in its decommissioning.

Dr. Thomas: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because nuclear energy is one of the few issues on which we see eye to eye. The cost of decommissioning is unlikely to come within the budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that decommissioning will provide a certain number of jobs. From my discussions with Nuclear Electric and its predecessor, the Central Electricity Generating Board, my understanding is that decommissioning would not require the same number of people as are required to run a station, and that the specialised and dangerous work of decommissioning would perhaps require only 150 to 200 people—so 300 to 400 jobs would still be lost to the local economy, with the multiplier effect that I mentioned earlier.
Parallel models are available in the form of the British Steel Corporation—in Shotton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and in areas of south Wales such as Ebbw Vale—and British Coal in the mining areas. In those cases, the existing utilities became agencies for replacement jobs.
The post-privatisation commercial structure of Nuclear Electric does not permit it to serve as such an agency, so we should look for ways of providing equivalent funding.
I want the northern Meirionnydd steel area to be treated as though it were an area subject to coal mining closures. Steel is a similar size of industry, and a comparable utility. I want the Welsh Office to signal tonight, or at a later stage, that it will respond positively to local activities in that respect. Recently, working parties reported to the district council, and the Antur Dwyryd agency produced its own plans for the 1990s which take account of the impact of decommissioning. We want an assurance from the Welsh Office that funding will be available within the development board's allocation to provide alternative jobs.
As for the current state of Welsh Office and development board crafts policies, had I not been participating in this debate, I would have joined a delegation to the Secretary of State on that very issue. However, I thought that it would be appropriate to be here instead, just in case Members on the Labour Front Bench tried to get at me again when my back was turned—[ HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—as is their usual procedure.
Can the Minister say whether the crafts initiative or agency role by contract performed by Craft Consultants (Wales) Limited will continue in one form or another? There has been conflict between the crafts council for Wales and the DBRW and WDA as to who does what in promoting crafts. The former secretary of State produced a craft initiative as one of many that he devised, but I am not sure that its progress is as satisfactory as it might have been.
Competition of a kind that is not always useful exists in the provision of services to individual craft workers, as between the WDA and DBRW. Many of us are concerned about providing the right framework for all kinds of crafts development, very often in isolated locations, and some of us have had the privilege of visiting crafts persons on remote hillsides, where they produce items which end up being sold in Harrods. That is not always a test of quality, but at least it shows how widely Welsh crafts are now marketed. I want an assurance that there will not be an end to the crafts initiative and that a further attempt will be made to bring together the WDA and crafts workers so that they can co-operate more closely. The crafts council, through the agency work that it performs on behalf of its members, provides a voluntary support service.
We should not always look for clean lines to be drawn in our dealings with the rural economies, nor look just at the work of the WDA or DBRW—thinking that the only way to promote small businesses is through official bodies. We should consider also ways in which voluntary membership agencies such as the crafts council can undertake promotional and other work on behalf of its members, alongside and without duplicating that of public sector agencies. I shall be grateful if the Minister, having referred to the crafts sector as having a part in this debate, will make a response.

Mr. John P. Smith: I welcome the additional money that is to go to the development board, as does the whole Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends in particular welcome it, because the DBRW was Labour's brainchild. We introduced it, together with many other successful Welsh institutions, such as the Welsh Development Agency. We are glad to see extra money made available to tackle some of the well-understood and

well-established problems that confront rural mid-Wales—in particular, those associated with maintaining the rural economies and stopping depopulation.
I want to sound a note of caution in respect of the way in which the money is to be spent. I represent a Welsh constituency that is predominantly rural and which—unlike many others in Wales—has significantly benefited from the kind of money that, under the clause, is intended for other parts of Wales. I want to highlight some of the problems that can be associated with successful development if it is not properly handled.
Two themes have been taken up by other hon. Members. First, we need to know exactly what the additional money will be spent on. Secondly—this point has come up repeatedly—it is necessary to co-ordinate the development board's work with the work of other agencies such as the WDA, local authorities and British Rail, to mention but a few in the public sector, and the private sector, which will play an important part in these developments.
Unless we are careful about identifying the needs that go with new investment in jobs and industry, we will create great problems. That may sound like a contradiction, but it is an important political issue for the House to consider in relation to the Bill. Since I have been the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, the area has managed to attract a disproportionate amount of inward investment, totalling £1·1 billion. That is one of the highest concentrations of inward investment in the world and is certainly the highest in western Europe.

Mr. Win Griffiths: It is all to my hon. Friend's credit.

Mr. Smith: I refuse to take all the credit, but I am delighted by that investment. I recognise the role played by the economic development committee of the county council and the WDA, not to mention one or two by-elections. We welcome that investment and hope that there will be more, but it is creating problems and pressures in the rural part of my constituency. The three points of the economic triangle of success are Cardiff Wales airport, with the massive British Airways investment in precision engineering jobs—which we want to see in mid-Wales as well—the huge investment in the Ford plant in the north-west of my constituency, totalling almost £500 million, and the investment at Bosch, which will create nearly 1,300 new jobs.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will now relate his comments to the clause. Although his constituency is extremely important to him, it does not lie within the board's area.

Mr. Smith: Absolutely, Miss Boothroyd. I am glad that you have drawn my attention to that point. We must get across the point that, in spending this money, we must not make the mistakes that were made in the past. The development board should learn from past lessons and ensure that there is no repetition of previous mistakes.
Investment of this size will create a problem in the local labour market. We must ensure that there is trained, skilled labour to fill the occupations created in the rural areas or we will do one of two things: we will poach skilled people from existing employers in rural Wales or, worse still, we will add to the migration problem by encouraging


skilled labour from outside to go into the rural areas. Some people believe that that is already happening in our area. The development board should recognise the fact that, unless the training challenge is met, the problem will get much worse.
We must also consider the impact of investment on transport. I have personal experience of this in my area and I know that the problem will affect the area covered by the development board. I warn the Minister that, if we are successful and we attract investment, it will result in huge pressures on our transport network. Because of the new investment in Ford and elsewhere, it is dangerous and almost impossible to attempt to cross the road in the little village of Llysworney. The high volume of traffic and number of large stone-carrying and goods-carrying vehicles going through the villages make a bypass necessary. A bypass is needed also in Dinas Powys. The main trunk road through that local area, the A4050, needs to be upgraded. In addition, the rail line through the rural part of my constituency should be reopened.
Those are the transport needs of an area that has been successful in attracting development and investment. When considering the allocation of moneys and the encouragement of investment, the development board should ensure that it first has an integrated transport policy, or it will create problems like those in our area. The effect of investment on the local labour market and on transport is of considerable concern.
Housing is another important matter in rural areas. The depopulation problem in mid-Wales results largely from the inability of the indigenous population to purchase houses, in the absence of low-cost houses for rent, because of low incomes and lack of employment. The development board should bear it in mind that that can also be a problem in areas of considerable developmental success. People may be amazed to hear that, although we have been successful in attracting investment, in the rural vale—where the population is increasing—there is an acute housing shortage. Because we have had so much success, property prices are high. The indigenous community in relatively well-off communities, particularly young people, cannot afford to stay in their villages, although they may have good jobs in Cardiff to which they commute daily and their parents may be reasonably well off and live in rather expensive houses. The capital values of property in the rural part of my constituency are among the highest in Wales, but there is an acute housing shortage. The development board should carefully consider the impact of disproportionate investment concentrated in certain areas—a matter to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred.
We need a housing strategy to provide low-cost rented housing for people in rural areas on low incomes and those who are out of work and for people in areas of success. My area is a popular place in which to live—

Mr. Derek Conway: Under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Smith: No, under a Labour Member of Parliament. The problem in my area is the opposite of the problem in some rural areas. The region is so popular that, I admit, some parts of my constituency are referred to as the filing cabinet of England. Civil servants who come down from

Whitehall to the Welsh Office, the Royal Mint or the Inland Revenue know that my constituency is a nice place in which to live.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is an excellent place in which to live, but he should get back to the geographical area that we are debating.

Mr. Smith: I will get back to the important point at issue. We have referred to the pressure that investment places on the labour market, to the effect on the transport infrastructure and to the importance of having a transport policy if we are to attract investment. We have also referred to housing. Another important point is that once we succeed in attracting investment to an area, we must ensure that it is followed by balanced development.
Other hon. Members have referred to the pressure on planning, to intrusions into the green belt and to the destruction of the countryside. In my constituency, there is a planning application for a golf course, for a new town, for a ski slope or for a race track on almost every open site and on almost every green field. Yet people have paid to live in this area because they want to enjoy a certain quality of life. The irony is that it is an area where such plans and development are not wanted, while we are crying out for development and investment—and doing what we can to attract it—in nearby conurbations.
I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that when the board seeks, through strategic intervention, to attract investment and rural industrial activity, such development cannot be left to the free market. If we are to have economic and industrial growth, we must have the corresponding infrastructural changes to ensure that the quality of people's lives is not destroyed. There is a danger of that happening in my constituency, which is predominantly rural, and the environment will be under threat unless we get our act together. I am confident that, with institutions such as the Development Board for Rural Wales, we can do that.
Like other hon. Members, I want to draw the attention of the House to the importance of agriculture in the development areas. Some hon. Members seemed to imply—I am sure not intentionally—that the agricultural crisis in Wales is restricted to the hill farms and to the family farms which are typical of the catchment area of the board. I must remind hon. Members that the crisis goes beyond that. It affects the livestock and dairy farmers in some of the richer and more influential farming areas such as the Vale of Glamorgan. I can assure the House that the crisis in livestock prices and high interest rates affect all farmers.
Other hon. Members have said that only some sections of the farming community benefit from the huge farming subsidies, but that is not quite the case. By and large, it is not the farmers, but the retailers—and especially the five large supermarket chains—who do well out of the subsidies and they often fail to pass on the benefits to the consumer.
I hope that, as the Development Board for Rural Wales goes from strength to strength with its additional expenditure, it will take steps to meet some of the problems to which I have referred. I hope especially that the board will tackle those problems in rural areas, such as the one that I represent.

Mr. Win Griffiths: In the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), we have heard more analogies than there are sidesteps in a rugby match. I am sure that he will be known as "Smith the Analogy" as he wove his story so well. I could almost imagine that the Vale of Glamorgan had been transferred to mid-Wales.
Although my constituency lies outside the area covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales, I speak with an interest in mid-Wales because I was brought up in the town of Brecon, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). My family history illustrates the need for the board and for the welcome increase in the money that it has available to finance the promotion of economic activity and, thereby, the social well-being and prosperity of mid-Wales. My parents had seven children; five of us are currently employed outside mid-Wales. The interesting point is that the two sisters who still live in the town of Brecon are married to men who came from outside mid-Wales.
Last night, the Secretary of State referred to the fact that, in the past decade, the population of the area has increased: inward migration has exceeded outward migration. That is only the beginning of a reversal of the trend that has been seen for generation after generation. It is important for the board to have its funds increased, because it will have to make up for generations of lost population and lost economic activity.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I noted that my hon. Friend said that he was one of seven children and that only two of them now live in his home town, which is in a rural area. I am in an identical situation. I, too, am one of seven children and only two of us now live in Carmarthen. The other five now live far away—some outside Wales. That is at the heart of the problem of rural depopulation and the result is the decline of the Welsh language. Once people move away, they and their children will no longer speak Welsh, so the language goes.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention because it strengthens the case for the activities of the board to be extended in mid-Wales. My hon. Friend mentioned the Welsh language and the difficulties that it faces after years of decline. I believe that the board uses part of its budget to support the Welsh language. When I read the annual report of the board, I could not see just how much money went to support the Welsh language and I hope that the Minister can tell us.

Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman looks at section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, he will find that it enables the Secretary of State, rather than the board, to devote money to social purposes, one of which is the promotion of the Welsh language. Under that section, the Welsh Office supports some of the activities in connection with the Welsh language.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I was referring to the development board's annual report which mentions support for the Welsh language. I was brought up in Brecon, which is an English-speaking town, although in the 1950s Welsh was still to be heard in farming communities 10 miles west of the town.

Mr. Livsey: It still is.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it still is, in places such as Trecastle. Steps should be taken to help families with children who go to bilingual schools but who do not speak Welsh at home. Our children managed magnificently until the age of 11: our friends told us that, had they not known that my wife and I were monoglot in English, they would have assumed that our children were from a Welsh-speaking home. But our children had distinct problems after the age of 11 simply because there is not enough literature in Welsh to enable children to be educated easily in the subject at secondary level. When my daughter had to do a school project on Mozart, she had to read everything in English and then write everything in Welsh. The Development Board for Rural Wales could kill two birds with one stone if it made it its job to support printing in the Welsh language because it could then provide the books that are needed in Welsh schools, which are not available at present.

Dr. Thomas: The development board has assisted Mozart on a number of occasions. It has sponsored various concerts, including an excellent one at Llangollen international eisteddfod.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to hear that, although I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the development board could become actively involved in the provision of Welsh books for primary and, particularly, secondary schools. They are desperately needed.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard of the Welsh Books Council, which receives £400,000-plus from the Welsh Office and whose main concern is the publication of Welsh language books. Other organisations supported by the Welsh Office are also concerned with the production of educational textbooks.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I beg him to examine the possibility that, as part of its activities in supporting the Welsh language, the development board could become more involved with the other bodies in Wales that are producing Welsh language books. That could improve matters greatly.
I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered on the need to provide housing at reasonably low cost in rural areas. Instead, I want to emphasise the need for rented accommodation. The Minister will know that the Government's mortgage-for-rent scheme has not had a very high take-up in mid-Wales. There are two reasons for the low take-up of what, on the face of it, looks like a bargain. First, despite all the inward investment that has taken place, despite the flourish of activity that surrounded the establishment of the development board and despite the fact that it is to be provided with the extra money that it needs for its activities, the feeling still prevails that the rural economy is fragile. We need to do more, not just through the development board, but through all apsects of Welsh Office policy, to promote the rural community in Wales.
Secondly, we must bear in mind the fact that many of those living in rented accommodation were not prepared to take the step of buying because they feared that they would not be able to sell if they wanted to move to another job. That emphasises one of the difficulties caused by high housing costs and high interest rates, which are bedevilling the expansion of the economy. Next year we shall have a


downturn in economic activity which will make the work of the board more difficult and the rural economy more fragile.
Some hon. Members seem to have set on one side as almost irrelevant the work of the board in agricultural support, saying that there are other ways of supporting agriculture in Wales. It seems to me that a vital part of the board's work is in promoting agricultural production—finished and new products that can be made on the farm or off it—thus making a significant contribution to the income of the Welsh farmer. It is obvious that it will become more and more difficult for Welsh farming families to make sufficient money out of farming alone. That is why the board's activities are crucial in the provision of agricultural support—in the promotion of the production of new cheeses or whatever. There is so much that can be done. That is why I welcome the increase in the limit on the board's expenditure.
I am pleased that a Government who opposed the creation of the board should have recognised the usefulness of its activities in mid-Wales and I hope that the board will continue to flourish, because it will be needed for a long time to come.

Mr. Martyn Jones: We are discussing the increase in the board's financial limit from £100 million to £175 million. On Second Reading, hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledged the good work that the board and its staff have done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, it is somewhat ironic that Conservative Members should now be supporting intervention in industry. They could not have done that in the past—at least, not openly—and one wonders for how long they will continue to do it. Nevertheless, it is nice to know that they support intervention as it is so obviously necessary to the rural areas of Wales.
Much of the money that will be made available under the Bill will be spent on maintaining jobs and blunting the effects of the recession which is hitting the areas of rural Wales covered by the development board. Such help would also be extremely valuable elsewhere, outside the development board's area. Had such help been available in my constituency, Biddulph's might not have been closing its factory in Denbigh this week, with the loss of 50 jobs. We could be maintaining jobs in an area which is just as rural as most of the board's area. In terms of rurality, the Vale of Clwyd and Glyndwr within Clwyd are little different for Brecon, Cardigan and other areas within the board's remit.
6 pm
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he would look at the boundaries in 1991. Obviously, that will require more money. I urge him to try to extend the boundaries into Clwyd, Glyndwr and Gwynedd within this year, which means that the £175 million is probably inadequate and that we should vote for more money tonight. I urge him also to give development area status of some kind to those regions so that we can attract Euro-money, which would get him out of the financial hole in which he would find himself if he extended the boundaries before 1991.
The Secretary of State said that he was seeking every way in which to strengthen rural communities. That is probably best done by supporting agriculture, by removing the effects of the deregulation of bus transport, which is a major problem, and by encouraging rather than discouraging post offices in villages. That cannot be done by market forces—it can be done only by state intervention. As I have said, hon. Members are, in effect, supporting state intervention by their support of the Development Board for Rural Wales. That is an encouraging trend and I hope that it will continue.

Mr. Murphy: This has been a wide-ranging debate on a simple Bill. The clause would extend the financial limit of £100 million, which was set in 1981, to £175 million. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware that that limit is not a limit of grant and that it also covers borrowing from the national loans fund, as well as Treasury guarantees.
Opposition Members welcome the extension of the limit to £175 million. It interests me in particular because, at one time, my constituency had within its boundaries the Cwmbran development corporation. At that time it was the only institution of its type within Wales, and the new town development corporations sprang directly from the one in Cwmbran. Many engineers, architects and others went to mid-Wales to set up the interesting experiment. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) rightly referred to the need to extend the boundaries of the Development Board for Rural Wales into Carmarthen and Clwyd. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board and report back to us.
According to its annual report, the objective of the Development Board for Rural Wales is to encourage the creation of a self-sustaining economy in its area, which, together with housing, is a crucial matter in mid Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the important aspect of the board's work, which the £175 million will cover, in the creation of housing in mid-Wales.
When I again read the report of the Development Board for Rural Wales I was surprised to note that it states that housing continues to cause difficulties in rural Wales. That must be an immense understatement. Hon. Members have referred to the importance of the development board in tackling that problem. They rightly referred to the problem of the affordability of private housing within the area covered by the development board. For instance, last year about 1,300 new private starts were made in that area. However, the average Welsh house price is about £45,000, there are high interest rates, rural incomes are lower than their urban counterparts, and house prices are about 20 per cent. higher. The problem of getting a private house for people who live in those areas is becoming worse day by day.
Of course, the development board has to work alongside local authorities. There are six district councils within the area. All six of them have been losers in the battle involving the poll tax and the unified business rate. Local authorities suffer that burden and the loss of their position as housing suppliers in Wales. I should have thought that that responsibility would rest with the development board. The hon. Member for Brecon and


Radnor rightly said that the development board should take over the functions of housing associations and work closely with them in mid-Wales. That is not happening.
Last year in the development board area, 801 local authority and housing association houses were sold and only 222 starts were made. Unquestionably, that has given rise to homelessness in the area. Also, 329 families were officially homeless in the middle part of Wales. Tai Cymru, to be fair to it, instituted research into what should happen with housing in mid-Wales. It came up with the inevitable result: there is much hidden homelessness in mid-Wales and the waiting lists with local authorities and the development board are probably much higher than the official figure of 6,000 people. As the Minister is aware, district councils in Wales have said that 6,000 more homes should be built within the Principality and many of them in the area of the development board.

Mr. John P. Smith: My hon. Friend has rightly referred to losses to Wales and losses in Wales. Will he take this opportunity to agree that the tragic loss this week of one of my constituents, Mr. Cliff Jones, arguably one of the greatest outside-halves to come from Wales—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the clause stand part debate. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr. Smith: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. This is a clause stand part debate relating to the financial limitations of the board. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman was referring does not relate to that subject.

Mr. Murphy: I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan.
Whole communities are breaking up because of the lack of affordable housing in mid-Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to new housing development by the board which, in a sense, was used as a guinea pig by the Welsh Office and by the Government in respect of the rents-into-mortgages scheme. My hon. Friend told us that that has flopped and that, out of 1,400 tenants of the development board in Newtown, only 35 applications have been received. In Scotland, out of 123,000 tenants of similar boards, only 42 have applied. The Government's idea, which was to finish off all sorts of public housing in the centre of Wales, has flopped.
Section 18 of the Development Board for Rural Wales Act 1976 refers to housing subsidy. At the Conservative party conference, the Minister for Housing and Planning referred to the withdrawal of housing subsidy from local authorities and from new towns during the next few years. I hope that the money that we are discussing will not mean that subsidies for tenants in the mid-Wales development area will suffer as a consequence of what might or might not be Conservative party policy in the months and years ahead. Local authorities, the development board and Tai Cymru—Housing for Wales—should try to arrest the crisis in Welsh rural housing.
For instance, they should consider the problem of second homes, which has been mentioned several times in the past two days. They should also consider the planning laws and ensure that planning permission for second homes is carefully examined. Development land should be designated to house local people, not to make property

developers richer. They should set up housing help centres in mid-Wales. They should have a crash programme on homelessness and certainly should ensure that the capital receipts that local authorities and the DBRW receive from the sale of local authority houses go back to them so that when houses are lost through the right-to-buy scheme they are replaced with new houses for people in the centre of Wales who look to the board to house them.
We have highlighted some of the problems in mid-Wales. We welcome the increased resources that have been allocated to the board, but we are convinced that the extra £175 million would be put to best use by a Labour Government, as a Labour Government set up the board in the first place.

Sir Wyn Roberts: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate. In all, 10 hon. Members have spoken in this clause stand part debate. If there is an excuse for the wide-ranging character of the debate, it is that, as I understand it, we propose not to have a Third Reading debate.
I begin by dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I seriously suggest that he reads again what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at column 936 of Hansard about the funding of the special rural action programme. Similarly, at column 967 my right hon. Friend dealt clearly with the interest taken in the problems at Trawsfynydd. The problems are some years ahead but the north-west Wales training and enterprise council, although only recently established, has begun exploratory discussions.

Dr. Thomas: I appreciated what the Secretary of State had to say about the training and enterprise council, but there is also a role for the development board and for additional funding to meet head-on the crisis that will emerge in the area in the next five years.

Sir Wyn Roberts: We certainly expect the efforts of the training and enterprise council and other agencies such as the Development Board for Rural Wales to provide alternative jobs to be intensified in the intervening period.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that the gross expenditure of the DBRW had declined. He chose some curious years as examples of its expenditure. He chose 1978–79 and 1979–80, when there was exceptionally high expenditure at Newtown, but taking the period from the board's inception one sees that there has been an increase of some 15·4 per cent. in real terms in the board's gross expenditure. Similarly, from 1980–81 to 1990–91 there has been a 20 per cent. increase in real terms in the board's gross expenditure.
Several hon. Members talked about housing. Indeed, it would be easier to name those who did not refer to it. The Welsh Office has been aware for some time of the problems faced by people in rural Wales in securing affordable homes. I am glad to say that several measures are being taken. Although housing is an ancillary responsibility of the development board, hon. Members will be aware of the growing role of Tai Cymru, or Housing for Wales. It has directed about £25 million—no less than a quarter of its resources—to be spent by housing associations in rural areas this financial year. This year we have made available additional allocations or credit approvals totalling £2·8 million to rural district councils with severe second home problems to enable them to buy dwellings for rent or resale or to purchase land for housing development. To help


mitigate the effects of inward migration and second homes, public sector landlords in national parks and certain designated areas may impose conditions on the resale of dwellings sold under the right-to-buy scheme. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), however, when he implied that we should deny the right to buy because houses bought under the scheme are somehow lost to the housing stock. He knows as well as I do that that is not the case.

Mr. Murphy: The Minister completely misinterprets what I said about the right-to-buy legislation. I did not imply that the right to buy would not continue or that it was not a good thing. I said that the receipts from the sale of those houses should go back to the local authorities or the development board so that they can build new houses for those on the waiting lists in mid-Wales, who number over 6,000.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Unless things have changed drastically, the current year's receipts from right-to-buy sales can be used by the authorities to which they are paid.
Within the next few months we shall issue planning advice on land for low-cost housing in rural areas following consultation last year. Last year, Housing for Wales launched a rural housing initiative to assist local people, especially young people, to find suitable homes which they can afford in their own communities. The initiative is being run on a pilot basis in 31 villages across rural Wales. The majority of homes are being provided on shared ownership terms with a pre-emption right eventually to return the home to the relevant housing association.
More significantly, as the hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned, earlier this month Housing for Wales published the results of two vital research projects on the nature and extent of the need for housing in rural Wales. The second of those reports, which dealt with the importance of affordable housing for young people in determining their decision to remain in their home communities, goes further than housing issues. Housing for Wales intends to call a working conference early in the new year to discuss the findings of both studies. It will draw on the expertise of organisations with an interest in the quality of rural life.
You will probably not allow me to stray far on the community charge, Miss Boothroyd, but it is perhaps worth noting that within the development board's area some 29,000 chargepayers are obtaining transitional relief averaging £27 per person. The House will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to say this afternoon about a review of the community charge.
Many references have been made to agriculture but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out on Second Reading, agriculture is the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office agriculture department. Of course, we recognise that it is not an easy time for Welsh livestock producers. That is why we have introduced measures to deal with the position. Again, Miss Boothroyd, you will not allow me to stray far into what we have done for the beef sector by way of intervention. Neither would you

allow me to say much about the way in which we have brought forward the two advance payments of sheep annual premium, and so on.

Mr. Win Griffiths: You will recall, Miss Boothroyd, that I raised the issue of agricultural support. In the development board's annual report there is a section entitled "Support for Agriculture". The point made in the report and the reason why we raised it is that, while we recognise that direct income support for farmers is entirely another part of the Welsh Office, the development board has a responsibility to promote the industry and income for farmers by other means. That is why we should like to hear something from the Minister about that.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Perhaps, Miss Boothroyd, you will allow me to say a little about some of the income which is flowing into the rural community as a result of the measures to which I have referred. Intervention in the beef sector alone is costing the Government some £11 million a week. Welsh sheepmeat producers have a cash flow benefit of nearly £25 million from the decision to bring forward the two advance payments of sheepmeat annual premium. Obviously, there are other developments in the livestock sector. The hill livestock compensatory allowance payments alone total some £33 million.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister is trying to be helpful to the House, but he is going too deeply into agriculture. I am looking at the report and he is taking us too far into another Department's responsibility.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am seeking to say—

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I am grateful for your intervention. As you pointed out, the Minister was exceeding his role. However, I asked what the Development Board for Rural Wales was doing to support farmers. It has a remit to support them. That is what I want to know.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair to resolve.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. I was simply prefacing my answer to him by pointing out how much money was being poured into agriculture. The HLCA payments alone are worth some £33 million. Apart from all that, agricultural grants and subsidies, excluding intervention and so on, are worth some £100 million a year to Welsh farmers. Against that background, hon. Members are well aware that the role of the development board is to encourage industries and activities which are ancillary to agriculture. It is not a function of the board to administer grants and subsidies. That is the responsibility of the Welsh Office. Many of the activities covered by the development board are ancillary to agriculture and, indeed, life in general in the rural community which they serve.
Tourism has been mentioned—

Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) about agriculture and the responsibilities of the development board? There is a crisis in agriculture, particularly regarding lamb and beef. Even worse are the 30 per cent. cuts in export subsidies being negotiated in the general agreement on tariffs and trade round. We are


talking about small farmers. What is the Minister doing and what more can we do by using the development board to help and sustain the rural economy? Small farmers are critical to the rural economy. Is there not a case for a massive expansion of the hoard's role in supporting small farmers?

Sir Wyn Roberts: We all sympathise with that point. Indeed, I began my statement with an appreciation of the situation in agriculture. I also said that the administration of support for farmers in Wales was the prime role of the Welsh Office agriculture department, as in England it was for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is a role for the development board. Its function is not to provide grants and subsidies direct to farmers—there is separate administration for that—but to encourage and promote businesses ancillary to agriculture and life in rural areas. I am sure that that is where its main thrust should be.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister's positive approach has been welcome, in mid-Wales by the western initiative drive which has taken place in the past few months. It will bear fruit in the months to come. May I suggest that area offices should be opened in Ceredigion, Meirionnydd, Brecon and Radnor—the development board has opened a new office in Machynlleth which has been a great success in Montgomeryshire—so that young entrepreneurs and small business people who are keen for advice can go to a local office under the jurisdiction of the development board?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that those offices cover rather more than the interests of farmers. Nor would it be appropriate for the development board to have specific powers that are not available to assist farmers in other parts of Wales. I am sure that the board will also note his point.
I was about to say a word or two about tourism. Although the development board has a role in tourism, it recognises that the main role belongs to the Wales tourist board. There is collaboration between the two boards. The section 4 scheme administered by the Wales tourist board began operating in 1971 and has greatly assisted tourism throughout Wales. Since then, in the development board's territory alone, nearly £8 million worth of grant and loan assistance has been provided, supporting more than 420 projects with a capital cost of £38 million, creating or safeguarding about 1,550 jobs.
On Second Reading last night, and again today, the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Clwyd, South—West (Mr. Jones), to name but two, made a plea for an extension of the board's area. I can only think that that is prompted by a lack of full awareness of what the Welsh Development Agency is doing. It plays an active role in furthering the economy of rural Wales and that part of rural Wales which comes under its jurisdiction. The effectiveness of the WDA's activities in rural areas is demonstrated in a variety of ways. It has 1·7 million sq. ft. of factory floor space, providing jobs for more than 5,000 local people. More than £4 million in private investment has been secured since the launch of the rural buildings conversion grant scheme, resulting in the creation of more than 1,000 jobs. The DRIVE scheme has generated substantial private sector interest, leading to private investment in excess of £2 million.
I could expand considerably on the work of the WDA in areas outside the remit of the DBRW. However, I shall resist that temptation, mentioning only one point that has been raised in the debate—the support that the WDA gives to Menter a Busnes, the initiative to encourage enterprise among Welsh speakers. There is close collaboration between the board, the WDA and the Wales tourist board.
6.30 pm
The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to the availability of the social powers in the DBRW area. It is important to recognise that there is no legislative gap. The Welsh Office has the power to assist social development schemes throughout Wales, and some £3 million was spent on such measures last year. We have already referred to the Welsh language and the support given to it under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, but that section gives the Secretary of State power to support the Welsh language in Wales. I know that that will interest the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Bridgend, both of whom referred to the matter.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the reference in the annual report of the DBRW to measures to support the Welsh language include initiatives taken by the Welsh Office rather than by the board itself?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Like many other organisations in Wales, the board is quite capable of doing—and has the power to do—whatever is appropriate in connection with the Welsh language. I am sure, without specific knowledge, that both the WDA and the DBRW would support a business venture with the language at the core of its operations.

Dr. Thomas: This is an initiative within the board, strongly supported by the WDA. It has been effective in obtaining a response within the bilingual community in western Wales and from a broader base of opinion.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who referred to the craft initiative and asked for further information on it. The three-year period of the initiative comes to an end at the end of the financial year. If none of the parties to the agreement gives notice, the agreement allows for the current funding arrangements to continue. An early evaluation of the initiative is under way, at the request of those involved, and talks are also taking place about what support might be offered to the craft industry in the next financial year.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside foolishly accused the Welsh Office of not having a strategy. Who does he think is behind the board? It is not for us to second-guess it, but its policy is clear, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said. The objective of our policy for mid-Wales is to create a thriving, self-sustained, market-based rural economy. We have witnessed a major improvement in the climate allowing private enterprise to flourish. The development board's policies complement the work of the private sector.
The development board can be viewed as a facilitator acting in a catalytic role for manufacturing industry and helping to create jobs, reduce unemployment, encourage growth, improve the balance in population and achieve higher income. Its key objective is directed towards the expansion and diversification of the economy of mid-Wales. Its focus is on encouraging and strengthening the private sector within its area. I was delighted to hear


the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) that we should privatise as much as possible of the board's activities.
Our policy has helped to create an environment in which young people can find new jobs in manufacturing industry, in tourism and in the service industry, providing a much greater diversity of employment opportunities. Achievements in this help towards the creation of a much-improved quality of life for local people as well as attracting inward investment. All this helps to create a new confidence in the region.
To those who have pressed me for an extension of the board's work, I can only say that it has a full agenda already. It has wide-ranging specific powers on property development, business advisory services and the provision of finance for social and economic purposes. Its specific aims are to develop a flourishing enterprise culture within mid-Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: What consideration has the Department given to the activities of the board against the background of what is now admitted to be a recession in the coming year? What estimates has the Minister made of the rates of employment and unemployment in the area covered by the board?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am coming to that.
The second aim of the board is to assist the private sector in building better businesses and creating the jobs necessary to sustain and diversify the base of local economies.
The third aim is to provide for the people of mid-Wales, with their unique social and cultural heritage, the

opportunities to stay and prosper in mid-Wales. The fourth is to improve the quality of life in mid-Wales by improving the number and quality of social facilities and access to them.
The board's operational objectives relate mainly to the creation of viable jobs and the retention of the region's young people by providing the kind of social and economic opportunities that they require. Job creation is inextricably linked with economic, social and demographic structural improvement.
I was asked about the relationship of mid-Wales with the state of the economy. This and last night's Second Reading debate are about the only debates that I have heard for some time in which the unemployment figures were not mentioned once. There is a good reason for that. I am the first to mention the figures because the average rate of unemployment for October 1990 in the DBRW travel-to-work areas was 4·1 per cent. compared with the Welsh average of 6·7 per cent. That is a clear sign of the success of the DBRW, which has been acknowledged on both sides of the House.
The debate has been wide-ranging because it has represented an effort on the part of the Opposition to extend the debate beyond the remit of the development board. The new financial limit proposed under the Bill will provide the board with the headroom it needs to pursue the tasks that I have specified, not only now but in the years ahead. There is no question but that it has been a success and that it will be a success in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Import and Export Control Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short and technical; my speech will be short but I hope not too technical.
The Bill repeals section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. That subsection provides that the Act will expire when an Order in Council is made declaring that the emergency that was the occasion of the Act's passing is at an end. By repealing the subsection, the effect of clause 1 is to make the 1939 Act permanent. I do not think, in the circumstances, that I need dwell on the purpose of clause 2.
The 1939 Act is the last major piece of the emergency legislation introduced at the beginning of the second world war which remains in use, although, perhaps not surprisingly, it is not the only one remaining on the statute book. While preparing this Bill, we have initiated a review of other emergency legislation with analogous provisions to section 9(3), notably the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 and the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1939 and the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1942. Whilst the review is not yet complete, we have reached the preliminary conclusion that the powers provided by these Acts are no longer necessary.
The Import Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gives powers to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make orders prohibiting or regulating the import or export of goods to or from the United Kingdom, and enabling licences to import and export goods to be granted. It also provides for the forfeiture of goods imported or exported contrary to an order.
The power to control imports and exports has been, and remains, essential to implement a wide range of important Government policies. The powers to control exports have for many years been used to restrict trade for strategic reasons—for example, with the Warsaw pact countries and the People's Republic of China. The continuing need for such powers, even in a more peaceful world, is only too obvious. Other examples of the use of the powers are to implement international treaty obligations, such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and to give effect to our other non-proliferation policies aimed at preventing countries from developing a chemical, biological, missile or nuclear capability; to prevent certain exports which could be prejudicial to national security, such as encryption equipment; and to prevent the export of goods likely to be used for terrorist purposes or for internal repression.
The powers of the Act are used to prevent exports of antiques and other items which are considered to be an important part of the national heritage. We also use the powers of the Act to implement the voluntary restraint agreement on steel exports.
The powers to control imports are equally important in relation to safeguarding public security, such as firearms, and to support foreign policy objectives, although they are used mainly to enforce internationally agreed trade protection measures, including restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products within the framework of the multi-fibre arrangement. The Act is also used to regulate the import of bananas, although, contrary to some

popular opinions, that is not to help the Government to avoid banana skins but to help protect our traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
The powers in the Act to control exports are implemented by the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, which specifies the goods the export of which requires a licence from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is for exporters to determine in the first place whether a particular product needs an export licence. In the event that advice is required, my Department stands ready to assist. Licence applications are submitted to the export control organisation within the DTI. To minimise the burden of export controls on exporters, a number of open general and open individual export licences have been introduced covering many industrial dual-use goods. Those remove the need to seek prior authorisation from the DTI before making a shipment.
Imports are controlled under the Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954, also made under the 1939 Act, which prohibits the import of all goods. Since there is no reason to restrict the entry of most goods, an open general import licence has been introduced which permits goods to be imported without the need to apply for an individual licence, with the exception of those goods specified in a detailed schedule. Goods in that schedule can be imported only under the authority of an individual import licence, for which importers apply to my Department's import licensing branch.
The powers have been used regularly by every Government since the war. Nearly 200 orders or amendments to orders have been made since the end of the war, averaging more than four each year. That is a clear indication of the continuing need on the part of successive Governments for powers which enable new items to be brought under control when that is judged necessary in response to a perceived threat or technological change.
Equally, controls which have become unnecessary can be removed. For example, the major relaxation in controls, introduced in the light of developments in eastern Europe, which was announced in July by COCOM partners, has been implemented under the powers of the 1939 Act. I hope that the present negotiations on a "core list" will lead to further relaxations in export controls early next year.
The powers are therefore tried and tested. Experience has shown that they work efficiently and effectively without placing unnecessary burdens on business. The 1939 Act enables us to react quickly and flexibly in response to each situation as it arises. The importance of the power has been highlighted by the present Gulf crisis.
I emphasise that the Bill is essentially a technical measure. It does not affect the exercise of powers under the Act, or the import and export licensing systems which have been established and which are familiar to importers and exporters. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it is no longer satisfactory to control imports and exports under powers derived from an Act which
shall continue in force until such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date that the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this Act came to an end
We should now make the Act permament.
The Bill does not in practice change anything. The powers conferred by the Act have been operating


satisfactorily for many years, and it is important that they continue to do so in the future. The Bill simply has the effect of putting them on a permanent legislative footing.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. The Opposition do not object to the Bill, as it makes sense in the light of events. In view of the reunification of Germany and the fact that the allied powers now have no role in Berlin, it is patently absurd to suggest that any part of the emergency circumstances of the second world war exist today. In any event, the Government have made clear statements to that effect, in answer to parliamentary questions and in documents, for example, in the Government's observations to the fourth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in which they referred to the treaty on the final settlement. It says that the treaty settles
between the parties…definitively matters arising out of the Second World War.
If the 1939 Act were unamended, we should be in the strange position where it would presumably be possible for exporters and companies to challenge the legal validity of any measures taken under the 1939 Act.
When I first looked at the Act and the proposed Bill, my first impressions were of alarm and surprise. My alarm stemmed from the fact that the 1939 Act is couched in the language of war. That was not surprising because it was clearing the way for the conditions of war and the trading embargos and restrictions that were going to operate during that period. I was alarmed at the wording of the Act, which still pertains today, and I was surprised that the Act should be the legal base for so much of the export and import control adopted by Governments of different political complexions since 1939. Therefore, our willingness to accept the Bill does not mean that we accept that the 1939 Act should be the basis of such controls for ever and ever. It might well be sensible for a future Government to introduce a modern Bill, not couched in the language of 1939, to allow, for whatever reason, necessary restrictions on exports and imports.
I am glad that the Minister gave us some details of the way in which the 1939 Act continues to operate and some reasons for existing export and import restrictions. Will the Minister confirm that, while he referred to political reasons, there may be other reasons, such as health reasons, for the control of exports and imports allowed by the Act?
How effective is our import and export legislation? Let us look at the so-called Iraqi supergun incident. I do not apologise for raising that matter now, because the Opposition have repeatedly asked the Department of Trade and Industry to make a statement in the light of the dropping of charges in the Iraqi supergun affair. Following that affair, we are concerned about the effectiveness of our export and import controls.
When the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was first asked about the so-called Iraqi supergun, he said that it was not possible to reveal the full details because of the possibility of criminal proceedings being instigated. Now that charges have been dropped, we feel that we have a right to certain answers and are still perturbed that there seems to have been a failing within the Department of Trade and Industry to appreciate the

warnings given to it by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and others about the export of that equipment to Iraq. Why was nothing done to act on the information, which has been available since July 1988, on the specifications and contracts surrounding the order, the detailed information on changes made to the order and the knowledge that existed about the involvement of the Space Research Corporation of Dr. Gerald Bull?
Will the Department state what has happened to the equipment already sent to Iraq? Are the reports that some of the equipment is involved in test firing accurate? What is the military assessment of its potential uses?
An alarming report in The Independent stated:
Somewhere in Iraq, the 90ft long barrels of three British-built guns may be trained on allied forces 750 kilometres away in Saudi Arabia.
That is a matter of grave concern to all hon. Members.
Why did the Government fail to uphold the arms embargo against Iraq? We want full information about other possible breaches of the embargo. Companies need to know where they stand on export and import restrictions. One company involved was apparently told, in a telephone conversation with the Department of Trade and Industry, that it did not need a licence, but the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), subsequently said at Question Time that the company should have applied for an export licence. That effectively changed the nature of the application system and put a different onus on the companies involved. If companies are to be held responsible for every possible end use of equipment or products, they need a great deal more assistance and effective response from the Department of Trade and Industry than was evident in that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said.
Considerable concern was expressed on both sides of the House when statements were made by Ministers in March and April this year on the Iraqi supergun affair. Many of the questions asked then are still unanswered. Surely it is time for the Government to come completely clean on that issue. It is simply not good enough for the Department to say that any statement made on the judgment made to drop charges should be made by Customs and Excise—a full statement to the House of Commons by the Department of Trade and Industry is necessary.
The Opposition do not object to the Bill which, as the Minister said, is a technical measure and a necessary amendment to the 1939 Act if that Act is to accord with reality. But we urge the Government to improve their export-import procedures. In the long term—if the Government have a long-term future, which I doubt—will other legal vehicles be brought forward to achieve the control of exports and imports which are more appropriate than the obviously dated 1939 Act?

Mr. Sainsbury: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has expressed her support for the Bill, for which I am grateful. I note what she said about the long term—she used the expression "for ever and ever." I certainly would not suggest that the 1939 Act should remain the basis of legislation for ever and ever, but it is a matter for later consideration whether it would be appropriate to change it. In practice, very few people have occasion to look at the


original Act and would look at the orders, with which the hon. Lady is familiar and which are set out in more modern language, not in terms of dealing with the enemy.
With regard to the Iraqi supergun, as I hoped I made clear in my introductory remarks, it is for those seeking to export items to satisfy themselves whether a licence is required. The mechanism for controlling the export of military equipment and components from this country is the licensing regime administered by my Department, under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, made under the 1939 Act. It is for exporters to take reasonable steps to find out what they are making and disclose all relevant facts when asking about the need for a licence. A licence would have been needed to export components for a long-range gun to any destination, and would not have been granted for export to Iraq. In 1988 exchanges took place between Government Departments and industry in which advice was sought about the need for licences in relation to certain tubes. No basis was found for advising the companies that the tubes were subject to licence, and industry was accordingly informed that no export licences were required.
In the light of the Iraqi supergun case, the relevant Departments have reviewed their procedures. The hon. Lady asked about the effectiveness of those procedures. Some improvements have already been made and others will soon be made. The aim of the improvements is to remove any scope that may exist for misunderstanding between inquirers and Departments and ensure that all information available to the Government, which might be relevant to particular export proposals, is taken into account when deciding whether a licence is necessary and, if so, whether it should be granted. I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured by what I have said.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Weapons

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90, relating to controls on the acquisition and possession of weapons; and endorses the Government's view that any Directive must preserve the right of Member States to make those checks that are necessary for public security and public safety and that any additional burden on business should be kept to a minimum.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important draft directive on the Floor of the House. The Commission has proposed the directive as part of the plan to complete the single market. This proposal, advanced in November 1989, was revised in October this year to incorporate those amendments suggested by the European Parliament which the Commission had decided to accept. It is the October 1990 text, document No. 8836/90, on which recent negotiations in the Council have focused.
Firearms issues are nearly always controversial, but there is wide agreement on the two fundamental principles on which our domestic firearms legislation is based. First, and of paramount importance, is the need to ensure public safety. Second there is the need to safeguard the legitimate interests of those who use firearms in pursuit of their work or sport, subject always to the primary consideration of public safety. These two principles have guided our approach to this draft directive.
One of the directive's objectives is to increase security throughout the Community by the partial harmonisation of member states' firearms law. The directive sets a minimum standard of firearms control, to which all member states must adhere. This is intended to improve the safety of the Community's citizens. The admittedly modest degree of levelling up involved in this directive is something to which the Government can give wholehearted support.
Under the directive, in article 3, member states are left free to adopt more stringent controls in their domestic legislation. So there is no levelling down in domestic law, and it is important to keep that in mind when looking at the proposal. It guarantees that those standards of control which we consider necessary to protect public safety are unaffected.
The House may agree with me when I say that this has proved a complex and difficult text to understand, but the main aim of the directive is simple: it is to put in place sufficient compensatory measures to enable member states to abstain from controls on the possession of weapons at internal borders after 1992.
Underpinning these compensatory measures is the principle stated explicitly in the directive that the movement of firearms across Community borders is forbidden unless the rules of the directive are met. Perhaps the most important of these rules is that weapons prohibited under domestic legislation by a member state may not be brought into the territory of that member state. So, for example, the prohibition of some categories of weapons introduced by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is unaffected by the directive.
The primary compensatory measure proposed in the directive is the notification and information exchange system—in articles 11 and 13—which requires that member states are notified of every permanent transfer of


firearms to their territory. Under article 11.4, member states can insist that the transfer may not take place without their prior consent. The result for firearms dealers in this country would be a system similar to that currently operated whereby dealers, duly authorised under the Firearms Acts passed between 1968 and 1988, may receive an open general import licence which places no restriction on the quality of firearms imported.
For travel with personal firearms within the Community, the directive introduces a European firearms pass—article 1.4. But in general the pass will not itself convey authorisation to travel with firearms. The pass holder will still have to obtain prior authorisation from the member state to be visited—article 12.1.
However, there is an important exception to the status of the European firearms pass in relation to sportsmen and marksmen. Under article 12.2, sportsmen and women would be able to take their personal firearms freely to other member states on the basis of a European firearms pass without prior authorisation from the member state to be visited. This provision causes us particular concern, as it conflicts with our domestic controls on visitors.
The British visitor's permit scheme, set up under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, allows overseas visitors to come and shoot here with the minimum of fuss and bother. But—and this is the fundamental point—the scheme requires visitors to obtain our prior authorisation for their visit.
Our concerns on this issue have been made clear both in official working group discussions and in the Council of Ministers. It has been gratifying that there has been a sympathetic response from our European partners, who have recognised the difficulty that this provision presents for the United Kingdom. The likelihood is that we shall be able to secure either an amendment to article 12.2 on the lines proposed by the European Parliament or a waiver from its provisions. In either case this would allow us to continue to operate the British visitor's permit scheme.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What is meant by the abolition of controls on weapons at international frontiers? We are grateful for what the Minister said about traders having to register and about new passes and licences, but if these controls are abolished, will that mean that people are not searched? Which controls will be abolished?

Mr. Lloyd: The directive means that at an internal frontier there will be no regular system of inspection for weapons. We retain the right to make searches and checks as we believe them necessary for our national security. I refer my hon. Friend to article 36 of the treaty, with which he will be familiar, as the basis on which we may retain that right. If the directive is adopted there will be no regular inspection of everyone coming in from the Community, but we retain the right to make such checks as we think necessary to maintain our security.

Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a customs officer will still present to a passenger arriving in this country a list which will state clearly that firearms are not allowed and must be declared?

Mr. Lloyd: A Community traveller crossing an internal boundary will require prior permission and certification,

but it will be perfectly legitimate for him to bring firearms across the border. It will not be legitimate for him to do so without the permit and authorisation. If the directive comes into force, we shall no longer inspect everyone or regard firearms as goods that may not be imported. Anyone crossing the border with a gun, however—or already in the country—is legally required to have the appropriate permit; and, if any agent of Government believes that a weapon is being carried and that the appropriate permission has not been granted, or is not in the individual's possession, he will of course take appropriate action, as he would have done in the past.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I think that we are making rather heavy weather of this. The fact remains that anyone wishing to import a firearm, whether permanently or temporarily, requires special documentation under the 1988 Act. There is no question of this directive's overriding that Act. That should allay the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—and I think that I am right in saying that any of our own legislation that is more stringent than the directive will apply.

Mr. Lloyd: Yes: our provisions relating to what can legitimately be possessed in this country will still apply, and it will not be legal to bring in a firearm from another Community country without documented permission.

Mr. Hill: This strikes me as exactly the same old system. It has not been improved at all.

Mr. Wiggin: What about the 1988 Act?

Mr. Hill: Will my hon. Friend kindly not interrupt? I am trying to put my argument together. After all, Southampton—part of which I represent—is a very important port, employing many customs officers who do a tremendous amount of work. I am trying to establish that their vigilance will not be diminished by the availability of a certificate. What about the people who have no certificate, and do not declare what they bring in? I hope that the customs officers will not shelter behind a European directive which may make them think that everything is under control.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that our customs officers will want to shelter behind anything. The law—the rules—will provide that no obligation will be placed on someone coming into this country to declare a firearm if that person has the correct permit. Of course, customs officers, police and all agents of Government will have a duty to take the appropriate action if they suspect that a weapon is being brought in without the correct authorisation.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Am Ito take it that a visiting sportsman with a rifle entering the port of Southampton, which is near my constituency, with a firearms certificate from the Community country of which he was a national—if that was required by that nation—and a European pass enabling him to travel round Europe with his gun would still have to have a visitor's permit? Will he really need three separate documents?

Mr. Lloyd: He may have all three documents, but what we insist on is the British visitor's permit: that is already the case.

Mr. Hill: What about the visiting terrorist?

Mr. Lloyd: The trouble with visiting terrorists who bring in weapons is that they do not declare them to customs officers, even at present.
As currently formulated, the directive suggests that member states must abstain from all checks on the possession of weapons at intra-Community frontiers : that is in article 15, and is what we have been discussing. We accept that other measures in the directive, which I have outlined—the ability to maintain prohibitions, the requirement for notification or prior authority and the information exchange system—provide sufficient safeguards to enable us to refrain from systematic checks on the possession of weapons at internal borders. We believe, however—as I told my hon. Friends a few moments ago—that we must retain the right to make checks that we consider necessary to safeguard public safety and security. We hold strongly to the validity of the general declaration annexed to the Single European Act, which states:
Nothing in the provisions of the Act shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of combating terrorism, crime and the traffic in drugs.
We shall continue to press for recognition that the rights affirmed by that general declaration, and by article 36 of the treaty of Rome—to which I referred earlier—remain unaffected by this directive. The United Kingdom is not alone in this approach, but has the support of some other member states.
We are, of course, concerned that any new requirements on business should be kept to the minimum consistent with providing for public safety. Careful consideration has been given to the implications of the directive for firearms dealers. We have had useful discussions with representatives of the trade; they asked for some minor but important alterations to the timing of the notifications on transfers of firearms which they would be required to provide under articles 11 and 13. Following concerns expressed by ourselves and other member states, the necessary changes have now been agreed. Given those modifications, the trade's view is that the directive will impose no new burden on their business.
I now propose to say a few words about some of the important definitions and technical details of the proposals, and how they affect our own domestic controls. I know that the definitional problems, which always arise in connection with firearms legislation, caused widespread concern in the shooting community when the directive was first published. Further concern was caused by some of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament. We have been glad to take full account of the views expressed by the representatives of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is co-ordinating the response of the sporting interests in the shooting community. Their concern, and ours, has been to obtain some major improvements to the original text. I am glad to say that, thanks to the vigorous and expert input from the United Kingdom and other member states, a number of improvements to the classifications and definitions of firearms have been achieved.
For example, in the category of prohibited firearms, the imprecise term
firearms usually used as military weapons
is to be replaced by "automatic firearms". Hollow and soft-point ammunition, which is widely used for hunting and target shooting, is not to be prohibited as originally

proposed but will be available to those with the appropriate authorisation. That is in line with our current domestic controls on such ammunition.
Following the firm expression of views by us and by other member states, it is now expected that the proposed minimum age limit of 18 for the possession of certain firearms will not apply to sportsmen and target shooters: that will allow youngsters to continue to participate in shooting sports, and will leave our domestic controls unchanged.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend add to that a clear statement that no further restrictions will be placed on disabled persons who wish to take part in shooting activities?

Mr. Lloyd: I was coming to that. My hon. Friend is right to raise the point, and we too have been concerned about it.
Similarly, the mental and physical capacity requirements proposed for possession of firearms, which may have been seen as discriminatory—indeed, I think that many of us thought them so—are expected to be dropped as they relate to many people who play an active part in shooting.

Sir Hector Monro: It is terribly worrying for hon. Members who have prepared for the debate by reading all the necessary papers to find that all the measures that we have come here to complain about have been overturned. What, in fact, are we discussing?

Mr. Lloyd: I hoped that my hon. Friend might be pleased that we had made some progress since the last formal document was issued. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to make additional points; if my hon. Friend was indeed hoping for the change that I have announced, I can only say that I am sorry that he has been deprived of the opportunity to make a convincing speech, or, at least, found it unnecessary. I nevertheless hope that he will be gratified that the endeavours that he intended to make have already borne fruit.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I am annoyed that we have before us a document dated 3 October 1990. It is called a consultative document. I assume that it is the current document. It says explicitly:
Without prejudice to Article 3, Member States shall allow the acquisition and possession of firearms classified in category B"—
which is what we are talking about—
only by persons who have good cause and who…are 18 years old or more".
It is infuriating that we are debating out-of-date documents. That is not the way to run Parliament. I want an explanation from the Minister.

Mr. Lloyd: Discussions are held continuously. When I know that progress has been made, I report to the House at the first opportunity. I am sorry that the document represents the position as it was some time ago. I understand the hon. Gentleman's irritation if he wished to make a speech about changes that he wanted to be made but that have already been made.

Mr. Randall: The Minister's explanation is not good enough. There is no excuse why the House should be debating a document in respect of which a change has been made, about which the Minister has notice but not the House. That is unacceptable. We ought to have had an


explanation. It could have been given by letter. There are all sorts of ways in which it could have been explained. It is unacceptable that we should have out-of-date documents on policy matters that are important to both sides of the House.

Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's ire. We are debating the latest text that has been provided by the Commission. There has been agreement on certain matters, about which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied. They have not been written up but I am taking the first opportunity that I have to let him know about them. Our obligation is to discuss texts provided by the Commission. The fact that I am able to add to that should be helpful to hon. Members. It is better for me to do that rather than to conceal that there has been further agreement.

Mr. Randall: I accept that the Commission publishes documents at various times. However, the Home Office also publishes documents on European matters. It provides explanatory memoranda. There is no control whatsoever over the Home Office when it comes to publishing explanatory memoranda. Something could have been produced in time for the debate. Although changes have taken place, there is a mechanism that would have allowed that to happen. It has not happened. The Minister and the Home Office have let down the House. I do not see how we can continue the debate, since we are not sure what other changes have been made. It makes the quality of the debate dubious, to say the least.

Mr. Lloyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand his exasperation. We are debating a text published by the Commission with which we were not satisfied. I regret, in a way, that we were successful in further negotiations sufficiently early for me to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman verbally here, without having been able to provide that information in writing and without the Commission having been able to provide a new text.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I dare say that there have been developments since the Home Office document of 25 October which was published by the Minister. Naturally, we are interested in those developments. However, we are debating documents that have been published. The status of the assurances from the Minister is by no means clear. He says that agreements have been reached. Agreements with whom—with all the member states, or with the Commission? What reliance can hon. Members place upon such assurances if we do not know the nature of the agreements that are alleged to have been made? The Minister seems to be trying to pre-empt the discussion by bouncing the House in a wholly unacceptable way.

Mr. Lloyd: The House cannot be bounced at this point. It is making no decision other than to adopt the Government's general stance in the negotiations. The fact that I was able to say that it looks as though on some points we have been more successful in the negotiations than we were when the document was published in no way bounces the House. In fact, it ought to bring some cheer to hon. Members.

Mr. Wiggin: I very much welcome the Minister's announcement. In many respects it deals with our worries. However, having gone to great trouble to change an important international engagement in order to be here tonight, I have to complain to the Minister that the debate need not have been held in its present form. The major points have been dealt with, but there may still be need for further debate. To conduct the debate on the basis of the document that is before us is no longer sensible. I thank my hon. Friend for the negotiations that he has carried out and I congratulate him on his success, but may I suggest that we ought to adjourn the debate and return to it later, if there are outstanding points still to be considered?

Mr. Lloyd: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the motion before the House is to approve the Government's negotiating stance.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about the status of the improvements. Agreements are reached in the Council's official working group. They have the general approval of the representatives of the other member states.
I understand the irritation of hon. Members, because we have been more successful, and more quickly successful, than some of us might have hoped. I shall reflect upon the machinery that is available to make sure that the very latest position is communicated to hon. Members before a debate is held. When, however, negotiations are taking place not just at regular and predictable intervals but all the time, there is a problem. I shall reflect upon how the House ought to be informed of these matters, but it is not primarily a Home Office matter. It is for the appropriate Committees of the House to consider the machinery whereby European directives and documents can be debated by hon. Members.

Mr. James Wallace: We are not just being asked to endorse the Government's stance; the motion also asks the House to take note of documents that patently are out of date. I understood the Minister to say that the provisions relating to disabled people are expected to be dropped. "Expected to be dropped" is somewhat different from saying that already there is an agreement. That highlights our problem. We are not sure what parts have been agreed, what parts might be agreed and what likelihood there is that they will be agreed. Will the Minister explain what he means by "expected to be dropped" and whether that differs from an agreement?

Mr. Lloyd: That was the tenor of the agreements in the working group. We believe that the wording will be changed in a wholly satisfactory way. The motion before the House is to approve the Government's negotiating stance; it is not that the House should approve any particular wording. What is useful about the debate, which has not been welcomed as much as I hoped that it would be, is that I have been able to inform the House about agreements that have been reached in the working group. Moreover, it enables me to take on board—because the discussions are continuing—any other points that hon. Members wish to impress upon the Government, since we believe that they ought to form part of our negotiating stance.

Mr. Randall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice. If we divide the House, will we be voting on the EC document before us or on the


Government's negotiating stance which has been presented orally by the Minister? It is crucial to know that because the motion before the House is a take-note motion and it refers to a document. If we vote on the motion, we have to accept that the words of the EC document are extant on the technicalities. The Minister has just said that if we were to vote we would be voting on the Government's stance in the negotiations that have taken place since the publication of the documents as well as the Home Office internal memorandum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I can help the House. We are debating the motion on the Order Paper. There are two key points in the motion. It says that we should, first, take note of certain European documents and, secondly, endorse the Government's view as expressed in the motion. Therefore, were there to be a Division, we would be voting on the motion with those two aspects in mind.

Mr. Frank Haynes: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes: I should think that the Minister would give way. That is what we are here for. We are here to discuss the document. I am sick of being kicked around by the Government, and that is what is happening. The Minister is ducking about all over the place. He does not know where he is and nor do we. I had a document dated 2 October. That is what is on the Table.
I do not accept what the Minister has said. He is bringing a verbal report to the House which is not satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) is right in saying that we should have had a report from the Home Office so that we can consider the matter properly. I have had a going over about these proposals by my constituents in Ashfield. I am here representing the people who have given me a going over and I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that we should adjourn the debate until we have all the information necessary to discuss the matter properly. As I have said, I am sick to death of being kicked around by the Government. They think that they can do what they like because of their large majority, but I am afraid that they cannot. We are all here because we are not satisfied with the way things are going.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is protesting far too much. Nobody would dream of kicking him around. I always find it illuminating to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but that was one of his less illuminating interventions. If he has points to make on behalf of his constituents, he is welcome to make them if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Haynes: Do your job properly.

Mr. Lloyd: We have done our job so well that I am able to tell the House that we have achieved in negotiations some of the things that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and other hon. Members would be pressing us to achieve in the next few weeks. The hon. Member for Ashfield is sad because the Government have already done some of the things that he was going to ask us to do.
In case the hon. Member for Ashfield did not notice, the document before the House is the latest text provided by the Commission, and it is our duty to bring it before the

House. When I came to the debate I was pleased to bring some good news. Perhaps on future occasions I should suppress such news. However, that would be unfair and unreasonable and I would do no such thing.
I want to touch on two other matters. The first I mention for clarification and the second for its legal significance. The House will have noted that, although the scope of this directive extends not only to firearms but also to weapons such as knives and crossbows, the compensatory measures proposed relate only to firearms. In effect, the domestic law on such weapons is left unchanged by this directive.
Lastly, I draw the House's attention to the question of the legal base of article 100A proposed by the Commission for the directive. We doubt whether that is appropriate, since it seems to us that one of the main aims of the directive is to facilitate the freedom of movement of persons carrying firearms as personal baggage. In our view, article 100 or article 235 may be more appropriate for the legal base. We have put our views to the Council Legal Services which is still considering the matter. Its formal opinion is expected to be delivered shortly. We will need to look carefully at what it says before we can reach a final conclusion on the matter. We shall continue to work constructively within the Council to reach a directive which maintains public safety and which is workable and legally acceptable.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is it the case that, unless the Council agrees unanimously to the Government's point that it should not be article 100A, nothing can happen? If the Council does not agree with the Government's point of view, what can they do about it?

Mr. Lloyd: We could determine whether we believed that the base chosen would not stand up in law and whether the European Court would direct that it was wrong. Before we did that, we would have to consider carefully all the arguments and whether we were likely to win them. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is very knowledgeable about these matters. We have said that we believe that the Commission has proposed the wrong case. We are seeking to persuade the Commission and our colleagues in the EC that it should be article 100 or article 235. The Commission is due to provide us with a formal response to our arguments, but we have not had that yet. When we receive it, we can consider more sensibly and effectively what course is open to us, unless, of course, the Commission agrees with us.

Mr. Taylor: I want to clarify this point because none of us knows the answer. If, despite the Minister's splendid points, the Commission says, "We are sorry but we think that it should be article 100A", does its view stand unless there is unanimous disagreement? My understanding is that that is so. There must be a unanimous rejection of the Commission's view and if, for example, Portugal or Greece thinks that it should be article 100A, that is it.

Mr. Lloyd: Luckily, I can tell my hon. Friend that the answer is yes. Unanimity is required to change the legal base.

Mr. Wiggin: The Home Office memorandum says clearly that the Council shall act by a qualified majority. Therefore, there is a difference of opinion.

Mr. Lloyd: On the legal base proposed by the Commission, the operation will be by qualified majority. Under the articles we are suggesting—article 100 or article 235—it will be by unanimous agreement. I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about how the base is determined. His fear was correct. As I said earlier, it is theoretically possible for us to challenge that on legal grounds and that would be a matter for the European Court. I would not like to hold out too much hope that that would be an avenue that we would think it wise to go down. If we did, I do not know whether it would be successful. However, it is a possibility.
I have taken more time than I intended in bringing good news to the House, so I will now commend the motion. I will listen carefully to any changes, strengthening or alterations that right hon. and hon. Members propose, because discussions on the directive continue.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The House has discussed the status of the document before us, and I want to add one further comment about that before beginning the main part of my speech. As the officials in Brussels have already reached agreement on allowing young people aged 14 and above to use firearms, why was there not sufficient time to produce an additional explanatory memorandum to explain that?

Mr. Colvin: Is the age limit really being lowered to only 14? I thought that it was to be lowered to 17 years of age. Perhaps I misheard my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Randall: I shall deal with that point in detail later. However, there is concern that children of 14 who, under current British Law, and under proper supervision, can fire pistols or rifles will not be able to do so under the directive.
The purpose of the measure is to harmonise the acquisition and possession of weapons within the European Community as part of the progress towards a single unified market. However, it will provide only partial harmonisation, because each member state can operate independent firearms legislation, provided that it meets certain minimum standards. In practice, the directive will mean that arms traders, sportsmen and others, will be able to move freely within member states with their own firearms provided that certain limited conditions are met.
I support the development of the so-called single European market, because I believe that Britain's future is firmly linked to the EEC's development. I want to see the Community thrive, for the sake of not only the people of Britain but the people of the other member states.
Despite the need for degrees of harmonisation, we must remember that the commodity covered by this directive is not wine, cheese, or computer technology but firearms, which deserve special consideration, given that public safety is at stake.
The Commission must not full steam ahead in such a way that it could prejudice public safety. If that happened, such innovations by the Commission and the Council of Ministers would be strongly resented by the British public. There is a balance to be struck between harmonisation as part of developing the single market and protecting public safety. Where there is any doubt, public safety must always receive top priority.
The thrust of the directive seems reasonable in attempting to make it easier for responsible sportsmen and

those who trade in shotguns and other weapons to travel with their firearms within the EEC. However, to achieve that objective, the Commission is proposing the abolition of internal border checks. At the same time, it is proposing weak compensatory measures. The net effect will be an unacceptable threat to public safety.
There is at issue a broader question than trade, and it is one for which the EEC is not responsible. I refer to national security. The removal of border checks between the United Kingdom and other member states could be regarded as a charter for terrorism. With the help of a few forged documents, members of all kinds of terrorist organisations would be able to move freely within the EEC with various weapons, to plant bombs, and to cause havoc. It is vital that internal border checks remain, especially for Britain, because of the problems that we have with the IRA. Accordingly, the availability of good intelligence and a policy of targeted checks at internal as well as external borders are crucial ingredients in combating terrorism.

Mr. Wiggin: The legitimate owner of firearms has always made the argument that, while legislation, documents rules and controls are made to apply to honest, straightforward people, the terrorist will never obey any law—however comprehensive it may be.

Mr. Randall: That point is central in my thoughts. The Commission is directing its attention to the legitimate users of firearms to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, but in removing internal border controls, it will also allow terrorist threats to emerge. I am not privy to internal Government security policy, and rightly so, but, as that aspect is part of the directive, it must be raised. I shall refer later to sportsmen, targeters, and others. My point is that Britain's national security is not within the competence of the EEC, and once border checks are done away with, threats would emerge.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman that the directive will create additional security problems and greater dangers for the British public. What does Labour think we should do about that? This measure will probably be passed by a majority vote next week and, whether we like it or not, will become the law of the land. I should love to know what the Opposition think we should do about that. It is a genuine question.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting my speech, but he asked a reasonable question. The measure is totally flawed and concerns a matter that is outside the competence of the Commission. Certain national considerations are beyond the scope of the document, so I am inclined to vote against it.
Any measure that will help sportsmen and other genuine members of the public to move around Europe with their firearms more easily is entirely laudable and acceptable, provided that it does not imperil public safety. We can let the Commission know in the strongest possible terms that we oppose the basic structure of this document by voting against it—that is all the power we have as parliamentarians. That is why we will suggest that there should be a Division.
These are security matters. It is necessary to have intelligence and targeted checks at borders. There will be immense problems in Britain because of the number of people who will go through the channel tunnel, but we must also be vigilant in dealing with terrorism.
In proposing the abolition of internal border checks, the directive advocates the introduction of several compensatory measures. The first is to toughen external border checks. On its own, that seems a reasonable proposal. However, as Britain is on the periphery of the EEC and forms part of the external border, and as we have special problems with the IRA compared with other member states, it is exceedingly unlikely that the proposal in the directive to strengthen external border checks will result in much change—certainly not along the external border of Britain—because our authorities will almost certainly have taken the necessary steps to combat terrorism in that way. The directive's proposal will not add anything in particular. Anything that helps to restrict terrorists' ability to import weapons to the EEC via other external borders is clearly welcome.
A second compensatory measure is the proposal that firearms legislation throughout the Community should meet certain minimum standards. Ours goes well beyond what I would envisage to be the minimum standard. If certain member states wish for their own reasons to have firearms legislation that goes beyond those minimum standards, it is a matter for those member states to decide. In practice, this means that there will be disparities between various member states, in terms of not only legislation but the border controls that the firearms legislation determines. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 resulted in the British visitor's permit, which allowed personal firearms to be checked at borders for compliance with the scheme. It should be noted that removal of the controls would result in the British visitor's permit scheme becoming inoperable. It seems, from what the Minister said in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), that the opportunity for spot checks will disappear. Those powers which exist at the moment to carry out such spot checks will cease to exist because of the directive.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I said that the Customs controls that exist at present will cease under this directive, but a central part of our stance in the negotiations is opposition to controls for internal borders—certainly ours. We want targeted checks based on intelligence, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees. They will remain essential They are the means by which firearms brought in illegally are found now. We intend to maintain the use of intelligence and checks as our security dictates, although the directive would mean that blanket checks at a normal, old-fashioned international border may not be maintained between Community countries.

Mr. Randall: These are matters of security and I am not an expert on them. I should have thought that, the greater the belt-and-braces approach in security matters, the better. We have seen many examples of the way in which IRA arms stores have been found purely by chance and by spot checks. I should regret any weakening of those powers.
A third compensatory measure proposed in the directive for the removal of internal border checks is the establishment of an information system, the purpose of which is to provide data for member states describing which firearms have crossed their internal borders and entered their countries. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House—I am confused about this—whether the Commission proposes that a centralised records system

should be set up for the whole of the EEC. Will he tell the House exactly what the functions of the system will be? How will this system compensate for the loss of border controls? Who will control it? As we have centralised police forces, does it mean that every police authority in Britain will have to interact with this system?
If I understand the system properly, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. Instead of that nonsense, I would rather our police were on the streets dealing with crime. That is what this country needs. I should be grateful if the Minister would give detailed answers to those points, because I am sure that the House wants to know the details.
It is important to recognise that the problems of terrorism, particularly the IRA, extend to other member states, rather than being associated only with the United Kingdom. That can best be illustrated by an article in The Times dated 18 June 1990 and entitled "European police forces co-operate in fight against terrorism". It is about the co-operation between the Dutch and Belgian authorities in arresting a suspected IRA terrorist on 16 June 1990—the Donna Maguire affair. I shall quote a little of it because it is enlightening. The article states:
Interior ministers across the European Community are fully aware that the latest IRA bombing and shooting campaign against British bases and army personnel in West Germany and the Netherlands represents the most serious terrorist threat on the Continent since the wave of anarchist class warfare in the 1970s…
The IRA challenge is in some ways greater. As customs and immigration checks in the European Community (EC) becomes more relaxed due to increased economic integration, Irish republican terrorists find it easier to move across borders.
Last April…the head of West German's Federal Police, warned that a single Europe would make his country an even more tempting target for the IRA and other terrorist groups. IRA units have exploited this openness, striking at British bases and personnel and escaping in minutes across a border…
In response, European police forces have increased their co-operation…European Community interior ministers…agreed to streamline the exchange of information on terrorist groups, including the establishment of a European Common Information System. This will involve setting up a data base.
It seems odd that, with so much going on, the Commission is attempting, through the draft directive, to relax border controls on people and firearms. It does not make much sense.
The directive is based on the Schengen agreement, which has resulted in the lifting of certain border restrictions between the Benelux countries and Germany. What may be desirable or necessary for some EC member states on border controls may not apply to us.
It is surprising that the Commission has produced a draft directive that does not seem to take into account the disparity in firearms legislation and border controls between member states. The genuine concern of member states about their national security should have been taken into account in earlier drafts of the directive. National security is not a negotiable matter, so I hope that the draft, which is badly flawed, will be amended to take vital matters into account before it finally goes to the Council of Ministers.
We debated the matter of age earlier. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the present feeling is in Brussels. I presume that the officials are negotiating those matters. Is there movement or is there likely to be movement on relaxing internal borders?
Why is the Commission suggesting that the directive be approved by majority voting rather than by unanimity?


What derogation can the United Kingdom obtain on the ground of national security if majority voting is applied? Although those matters are complex and legal, I should be grateful if the Minister would give a detailed answer.
Paragraph 8 of the explanatory memorandum dated 25 October says:
The Directive also introduces a European Firearms Pass…for EC nationals wishing to travel with firarms within the Community. In general the EFP does not in itself convey authorisation to enter another Member state with a firearm, but is intended to facilitate it".
The memorandum then lists the exceptions. What is the real purpose of the pass? Who will be the issuing authority? The Minister answered the question about the British visitor's permit. It seems that we shall run the two in parallel. Will the Minister confirm that? Will Britain take part?
We had a discussion about article 5 and there is still concern about it because it has not been finalised. The directive restricts the acquisition and possession of weapons to those who are 18 years of age or more. As we know, at present in the United Kingdom, 14-year-olds can shoot with pistols and rifles if they are supervised in doing that. I regretted very much that that restriction was in the directive. It showed a lack of contact by the European Commission in understanding what goes on in this country. I am sure that the Minister realises that, if the restriction were put into practice, the effect of so limiting young people would be disastrous for Britain's future Olympic hopes in shooting events. Young people would not be able to train in their sport and that would be a serious problem. Unless there were a serious threat to public safety, the Labour party would have strongly opposed that part of the directive tonight. However, I am delighted to hear from the Minister orally that there has been a change in that provision.
The Labour party also opposes parts of article 5 because they could impose restrictions on paraplegics. Unless there are good public safety reasons for those restrictions, we should reject them. It is important that people with physical disabilities are not unnecessarily discriminated against and that they are free to pursue sport in the way that they wish.
It is important to note that the safety record of sportsmen in Britain is one of the best in Europe and, indeed, the world. The Labour party, therefore, believes that firearms sportsmen should be free to pursue their interests without having petty and unnecessary regulations imposed on them, whether by the Commission, by the British Government or by the other institutions that are involved in firearms. However, that freedom must be based on the unstinting concern by sportsmen for public safety. If they have such a concern, they will always receive the full support of the British Labour party.
We are appalled by the quality of the document. It is flawed and it is not up to date. We will demonstrate our opposition to the way in which this business has been handled, and our support for young sportspeople and sportspeople in general by dividing the House on the directive.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I only wish that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) had been speaking for the Opposition from the Front Bench during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I believe that there can be harmony in this matter. In the course of his introductory remarks, my hon. Friend the Minister said several times that firearms matters were troublesome. The last thing in the world that those of us who are fond of shooting want is to have troublesome relations with the Government. There is no need to have troublesome relations with the Government if—I repeat the principle that I enunciated earlier in an intervention—it is recognised that the law-abiding sportsman is not the person on whom the force of law should descend. He does not commit the crimes; he does not have the illegal weapons. At the time of the 1988 Act, we were carried away, quite illogically, by the Hungerford incident and I do not want to refight those battles.
I must tell the House that I have an interest in the matter as I have recently been elected chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council—a post which is, sadly, unpaid. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for acknowledging in his opening remarks that the council had given some professional expert advice on this highly technical matter to the Home Office. I can assure my hon. Friend that so long as I am chairman, the best possible relations will be established between that body and the Home Office in the hope that we can come to sensible solutions. I am sorry that we should always be considered to be a troublesome section of the community. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people get a great deal of innocent fun from shooting in all its forms. It is not right that there should be a conflict of interests between their hobby and our Government.
I was immediately concerned to find that the word "firearms" had been dropped from the heading of the directive and that the word "weapons" had been used. The word is used because weapons other than firearms are covered by the directive. One mission that the Government might care to pursue in Brussels is to differentiate between firearms and all the other offensive weapons in which I have no interest and which I appreciate the need to control.
We must examine the purpose of the directive. I see it as being to establish an internal market in which the free movement of goods and services is secured, to provide for harmonisation as far as possible in national laws of member states and to ensure that member states consent to or are aware of the import of weapons into their territories. Many people in continental countries can go shooting across a national border 50 miles down the road and those countries' attitudes are, of course, quite different from those pertaining in our island state. I suspect that the civil servant who drafted the directive is a continental gentleman living close to one of the national borders near Brussels.
In the view of the shooting organisations, the directive should be primarily concerned with the question of open frontiers rather than with attempts to impose further restrictions on legitimate pursuits merely because they involve the possession of firearms.
The progress of the directive has been long and convoluted, and it has been complicated by differing


understandings of some of its technical details which have arisen from the different use of language as well as from the different languages used in the official papers. Such is the confusion surrounding the directive—this has been confirmed tonight—that even allegedly the most up-to-date edition is likely to have been superseded already. I welcome the Minister's remarks and I understand the dilemma. As a result of masterful negotiations, concessions have been obtained in Brussels and from the other Community states, but it has not been possible to reorganise the debate. The House is well attended, given the subject that we are debating. I should point out, too, that many of us have changed our engagements and come a long way to attend the debate, and organisations have gone to a lot of trouble to prepare for it. It might have been better to wait a few weeks until the matter was set in concrete so that the few questions that remained in dispute could have been debated. Instead, we may have to make some points that have, in part, been conceded.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here on Monday when the matter first came before the House. A couple of us tried to stop the directive being debated this week. We suggested to the Leader of the House that he should take it off and bring it back at a later stage because there was some argument about the Standing Orders and other matters. Perhaps it would be as well, even at this stage, to take the business off and bring it back at a more appropriate time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a typical Common Market cock-up?

Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman conducts his own permanent campaign on these matters and is most assiduous. But I am interested in the subject that we are debating tonight.
It now appears that, whatever its eventual form, the directive will place less emphasis than it should on the primary intention of moving towards the freer markets envisaged for 1992 and is unduly concerned with imposing grater restrictions on ordinary people, even though there is little—if any—evidence to suggest that it is not safe for them to possess or transport weapons. Some of the very people on whom the directive will have the most impact are individuals who have established their reputations as people of the greatest integrity and have achieved fame and honour for this country as its representatives, at international level, in a whole range of shooting disciplines.
Much of the concern of the shooting organisations is centred on the confusion which continues to reign in respect of technical errors and imprecise—at times even unintelligible—translation. One could go through the directive chapter and verse, nit-picking one's way through a confusion of ideals and intentions. A number of aspects have been identified as particularly significant. The Minister mentioned age, in respect of which a concession has been obtained, but I think that my hon. Friend should examine carefully the endless debates that we had during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act about the desirability of allowing properly supervised young people to shoot or to practise target drills at a much earlier age than 18. There is no reason why that should not be allowed; indeed, many of us in the House enjoyed those privileges in our early teens. There is no question of our

having a disastrous record in this matter. Very few young people have been involved in firearms accidents. We must examine the facts before jumping to conclusions.
A restriction on the possession and use of semiautomatic weapons would have serious consequences for certain sports. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that a number of Olympic and world shooting disciplines involve the use of semi-automatic weapons.
I had the feeling that my hon. Friend the Minister had dealt with the question of military weapons, but simply to prohibit a weapon because it was once put to military use or considered to be of military calibre is a clumsy and heavy-handed way of dealing with a problem which, so far as I know, does not exist.
Some of the proposals in respect of trade appear to run counter to our supposed commitment towards open borders and would be guaranteed to cause confusion. Going beyond trade interests alone, any injudicious legislation runs two risks. The first is the risk of avoidance. The other is the risk of incurring a financial commitment in terms of compensation. Following the introduction of the 1988 Act, only 4,000 semi-automatic weapons were surrendered when the compensation scheme was introduced. At that time, the Government estimated that there were 20,000 such weapons in private possession. One can only guess at the whereabouts of the balance.
Hon. Members have mentioned the requirement for "mental and physical capability". That could lead directly to many disabled sportsmen being barred from following what is often regared as a therapeutic pursuit and would directly affect such events as the Paralympics.
The Government will need to keep in mind the effect that the proposals would have on income generated by visitors from places such as America and eastern Europe who come here specifically for the shooting. I am told that in Scotland alone the income from that source is estimated at £52 million a year.

Sir Hector Monro: It is more than that.

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend says that it is more than that; it is certainly a very considerable sum and one would not wish to discourage such visitors.
Some of the European officials concerned seem to be intent on using the directive as an opportunity to deny individuals the right to possess weapons of any nature. I am happy to say that our Government repeatedly stated, during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act, that that was not their intention and that they sought merely to ensure that weapons in private hands neither fell into criminal hands nor were used to harm the public at large. All the shooting organisations share that sentiment.
The shooting population in this country is already subject to some of the most stringent safeguards and is still absorbing and coming to terms with the effects of recent legislation. It does not believe that it would be helpful or pertinent if the side effect of a measure intended to achieve a reduction in border controls merely led to yet more restrictions, uncertainty and expense for legitimate shooters, especially as there is little evidence to suggest that they bear any direct responsibility for lawlessness, the illegal use or possession of weapons, or any activity against the interests of the state or the wider European Community. The shooting community would point out


the contribution that shooting disciplines have made to greater harmony between the European states by way of international co-operation and friendly competition.
There are minor examples such as the possession of airgun pellets, although the Minister intimated that that point had been dealt with. The directive also requires the address of the holder to appear on a passport or identity card. There is no address on a British passport and I hope that we are not envisaging an identity card for firearms use.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that the British Shooting Sports Council's wisdom and enormous knowledge are used to the benefit of the nation and will acknowledge that our laws are already sufficiently severe without our allowing the nonsense in the directive to override them. I believe that the whole country is willing to co-operate with many of the directives which come from Brussels provided that they are sensible measures involving the harmonisation of trade and economics, but when they stray into social matters and matters of practice and habit—when, like this one, they represent sheer interference—we rather resent them. We hope that the Government will carry that message to Brussels forthwith.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I begin by taking strong exception to the manner in which the debate has been initiated. Even without the Minister's speech and its revelations of developments of which the House had not been informed, I should have raised some questions about that. Certain matters should have been put before the House but we have not had the benefit of considering them.
In particular, I refer to the advice of the firearms consultative committee, to which the Home Office document refers but is not before us, and to the desirability of an update of the evidence of the police in this matter. From the Minister's document of 25 October it is apparent that he has received advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers, but the latest advice that I have been able to obtain is the copy of a letter that was sent to the Home Office in February which expressed great concern about the legislation. That letter, which is dated 20 February, spoke of the
revocation of existing legislation or its supplementation by European controls being, in the view of ACPO, extremely costly in all its collective forms, financial, administrative and, most importantly, the loss to public safety.
Does ACPO's concern persist in the light of the amendments on which the Minister has reported to the House? It must be admitted that that concern was expressed in the most general terms, but it is material to considering whether we should welcome the legislation.
If we approached the debate with uncertainty about the views of the police and firearms experts, our confusion was worse confounded by the Minister who clearly has had important negotiations on matters that were giving rise to concern among the shooting fraternity, about which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) spoke so eloquently. I am bound to say that the Minister, not just as a matter of courtesy but as a matter of enabling the House to participate in an informed debate, should have taken steps before this evening to tell hon. Members of the developments prior to the debate to which he alluded. My

right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) wrote to the Minister on 13 November raising this matter in general terms, and he might reasonably have expected a reply before the debate, but no reply has been forthcoming.
I am bound to say that the debate procedure is extremely important in offering the House the opportunity to make an informed comment and possibly even assist the Minister in his diplomatic deliberations. We know the limits of our powers in matters flowing from the operation of the Single European Act, but it does not limit our capacity—

Mr. Skinner: You voted for it.

Mr. Maclennan: I have no regrets about having done so, but it renders our power of advice almost less than useless if we are unable to speak about an up-to-date situation in an informed way. The procedure seems to be severely weakened and rendered rather a mockery by the Minister's manner—almost in the sense that he was scoring points off the House by being in a position to announce matters of which we did not know. That is unfortunate.
There is another fundamental question about the Minister's approach that I must also raise. I refer to the Government's policy in respect of challenging the legal basis of this draft directive. It is strange that he should have such substantial doubts about the basis on which the draft directive is being brought forward by the Commission and that those doubts have not been resolved even now. The Minister has no intention of seeking to have them resolved before the negotiations are concluded. In answer to an intervention from one of his hon. Friends, he said that he thought that it would have been proper to have such matters dealt with under article 165, but that he was not prepared to challenge the matter and to take it to the European Court. One is bound to question whether he attaches any significance to the little dispute about the basis of the draft directive.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: We attach great significance to the argument. I clearly told the House—if the hon. Gentleman consults the record he will find that it is so—that we are waiting for the Commission's legal advisers to come back to us on the basis of the paper that we have given them arguing that the article base that the Commission is recommending is the wrong one. We have pressed our argument and we are waiting for the definitive reply.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not find that very convincing. The draft directive has been in circulation for about two years. Is it really beyond the influence of Her Majesty's Government to obtain an answer from the Commission's legal advisers in all that time? There has been a lot of argument about the substance, but surely the base must be a question to be resolved before issues of such substance and detail are determined. If the whole thing is flawed, a great deal of effort is being unnecessarily expended by this Government and other Governments. I question whether it is sensible to wait for legal advice for about two years. As vital national interests are involved and touch our national security, if the Government have serious doubts about the legal base, those doubts should have been resolved before the debate.
I now move from extremely important procedural issues to the substance of the draft directive. I start from


much the same base as the Minister started, by attaching the highest importance to the security issues that the draft directive raises. It is clearly of great importance that no legislation that is passed by the European Community should in any way weaken the effectiveness of our controls over firearms acquisition and possession in this country. I have mentioned my uncertainty about the attitude of the police to the directive. I hope that the Minister may have something to say about the attitude of the police.
The difficulty that we face in considering security is that it plainly is an adjunct to the central purpose of the directive, which is to effect the single market and to enable people to travel more freely across boundaries whether or not they are carrying arms. As we know, the Schengen group of countries attaches much less importance than we do to border control. Therefore, these matters have been handled in a rather different way in the Schengen group. The Minister's letter of 25 October refers to the uncertainty of the attitude of other member countries—the southern member states of the Community and France in particular—to the very purposes of the directive. Perhaps he could say whether those countries have maintained Her Majesty's Government's position in the deliberations.
I doubt whether it makes sense to operate two sets of controls in this sphere within this country. There is one aspect in particular in which that appeared to be the outcome of what is happening with the proposals to introduce a European firearms pass in addition to the existing system for the British visitor's permit. I confess to some difficulty in understanding how those two systems of control over visitors will operate side by side. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Many European countries have asked for no more than the European firearms pass. That is required by the directive, and the Schengen group of countries in particular look for no more. We look for more than that. We require the British visitor's permit in addition, to provide us with the extra security winch we believe that we need.

Mr. Maclennan: That helps greatly to explain the position, but I am not entirely clear whether visitors to Britain would be required by Community law to carry one pass while Britain required an additional pass that would make the movement of, for example, those engaged in sporting activities within the Community even more difficult than at present.
It is right to emphasise that for practical reasons one does not wish to put barriers in the way of visiting sportsmen. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the reasons. My information is that the value of shooting to the Scots is even higher than the £52 million suggested by the hon. Member. In February this year the Fraser of Allander Institute said that it was worth £78 million to Scotland alone. That is not an insignificant contribution to the Scottish economy, particularly as a great deal of it is spent in the less-favoured and sparsely populated areas where alternative employment is sometimes extremely hard to come by. We are not anxious to see that income lost.
I noted the opposition of sporting groups, at least at an early stage, to the provisions of article 11 of the draft directive. Article 11 would tighten control over entry from third countries into Britain. A great many Americans, east Europeans and others are interested in Britain's sporting

facilities. We should not wish to make it unnecessarily more difficult for them to come here. I do not know whether the anxieties about article 11 were dealt with in the negotiations in a way that meets our needs. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
The minimum age limit provisions and the professional competence requirement for firearms dealers aroused the greatest anxieties among the sporting fraternity. The Minister seemed to say that those difficulties had been removed in the working group. If that is so, a considerable step has clearly been taken in removing the anxieties of those who rightly take the view that young people should not be debarred—indeed, they might reasonably be encouraged—to enjoy the sporting opportunities of shooting at targets. Young people, especially those living in rural areas who are trained in the use of firearms for vermin control on farmland, should not be inhibited in acquiring skill and competence in handling firearms at an early age. Country people throughout Britain attach great importance to such matters. We must have absolute clarity on them, not merely an assurance that the Government believe that they have got it right. It would have been better if the Government had come to the House with a firm statement in writing to enable us to be clear about the matter.
It would be appropriate for the Minister to tell us whether his view has changed from that expressed on 25 October when he said:
It is difficult to see how partial harmonisation can achieve the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
That goes back to the legal question that I raised earlier but it is also a policy question. If partial harmonisation is not strictly necessary and will not bring about the establishment of the internal market, why are we doing it? That is a serious question. The Minister may have told us of the advance that he has made in eliminating difficulties, some of which I referred to, but that does not solve the problem that I raised. Perhaps the principle of subsidiarity should have operated in this case. It was not strictly necessary for this draft legislation to be considered. As the Minister and the House are aware, I am a strong supporter of the operation of the internal market and the development of the European Community's institutions. But I am not in favour of meddlesome legislation that gives rise to widespread anxieties about security.
I shall be delighted if the Minister can put his hand on his heart and say that disabled sportsmen will not be precluded from participating in paraplegic sporting activities as a result of changes which may or may not have been agreed in discussions. Let him be in no doubt that the majority of hon. Members would regard it as preposterous if, by a side wind, the disabled were deprived of that opportunity. It cannot be sensible and it cannot be the purpose of the legislation.
The draft directive is of considerable importance. I acknowledge that it is difficult to reconcile the interests of the various communities that have an interest in it. Plainly, some people would like to see the controls greatly relaxed. Others, particularly the police, would like to see perhaps even greater and tighter national control. Then, of course, there is the European Community dimension. I understand what the Minister is trying to do. He is probably broadly on the right lines, but if the House is to participate in ensuring that he gets it right, he will help us


considerably by making available the relevant information prior to the debate. That is perhaps the message with which I should like to leave him.

Sir Hector Monro: I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that what we really need at the end of the day is clarity about exactly where we are. My hon. Friend the Minister certainly helped us greatly tonight, but I wish to clarify several points with him because his speech was interrupted so often that he never made a firm statement on some important issues.
I begin by seeking to clarify the distinction between weapons and firearms. I caused some consternation at Edinburgh airport yesterday when I brought a skean-dhu with me to wear with my kilt at a St. Andrews night dinner tomorrow. However, it all arrived in one piece.
We seek to achieve a common denominator and harmonisation within Europe on firearms. Helpful as my hon. Friend the Minister has been, he must realise that many voluntary organisations and governing bodies such as the National Small-bore Rifle Association—of which I happen to be the president—the National Rifle Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Field Sports Society and the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association have all worked in recent weeks to produce intricate briefs for Members of Parliament for the debate. If they had been aware of the information that my hon. Friend the Minister would deploy early in his speech, it would have saved many people a great deal of time.
Those organisations had to go into the matter because, naturally, those who are interested in shooting are suspicious of the Government. In recent months the Home Office and the Department of the Environment had the shooting world in some turmoil over the birds directive which was to put pests on a special list. That would have been most unreasonable and, fortunately, the Government changed their mind. We are anxious to keep a close eye on what the Government are doing about shooting.
The 1988 Act, in which many hon. Members who are present were involved, showed how the Government, for the right motives, reached wrong solutions. The Act makes sporting shooting more difficult to enjoy than it should be. Many chief officers of police have different interpretations about firearms and shotgun certificates and make life difficult for legitimate sporting enthusiasts. I hope that the consultative committee set up by the Home Office will smooth out some of the continuing problems which are not going away.
Because we have already had so much detail in this debate, I can skip over some of the issues which I wished to raise. I want to be clear on where we stand on three important issues. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he was dealing with the age 18 restriction. Can he say whether, under this directive, those aged 10, 12 or 14 will be able to shoot under supervision?

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on the agreement of an age limit. Our domestic law should apply to those who come from abroad and wish to shoot here. Provided that they have the right papers and a British visitor's permit, they are permitted to come.

Sir Hector Monro: That is helpful. In other words, the British shooting public of any age can shoot under supervision without any problem, for example, at clubs and in school competitions such as the Ashburton.

Mr. Lloyd: I tried to explain in my opening remarks that British domestic firearms legislation would not be modified by this directive. What has changed is the Community rules for movement from one Community country to another. Our legislation remains as it is.

Sir Hector Monro: That is helpful. We are getting a useful collection of Government statements which I hope that the Minister will put together so that the firearms world may know where it stands. When he produces that document, I hope that he will be clear about the legal meanings of the words, "use", "own", and "acquire" because the firearms world seems to be in some doubt about where it stands on them.
Can the Minister tell us whether air rifle pellets will be illegal? As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, that is important, as are questions about soft-nosed bullets which are used in deer stalking. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked about weapons usually used as military weapons. Most rifles and pistols commonly used in target shooting have a military use or originally had one. Therefore, that is not a good definition for dealing with firearms.
My hon. Friend the Minister was interrupted when he spoke about disabled people. Will he be a little more explicit about mental and physical capacity? He said that Europe would give way on that, but I am not sure how far. Who is to judge mental capacity—the chief officer of police? Who is to judge physical capacity? During the passage of the 1988 Act the Government were not sympathetic towards disabled people and paraplegics.
I remember having to divide the House on an amendment because they refused to allow disabled people to use self-loading rifles, which is essential for those who cannot withstand the normal recoil of an ordinary bolt-action rifle. The Government did not help the disabled in that instance. Will disabled shooters have problems using a rifle in this country in future? If so, it would be a harsh decision for people who get great enjoyment from this form of sport. One of our paraplegic shooters is a world record holder and it would be unfortunate if we restricted his opportunities to participate in competitions. I hope that the Minister will be explicit about where disabled sportsmen stand. Shooting organisations would not have raised that with us in such detail if they were not gravely worried.
I am particularly interested in those who come here from without the European Community. We have British visitors permits and now we are to have a European certificate. I do not want to see controls intensified for those who come from beyond Europe to enjoy our sporting facilities. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke about encouraging sportsmen to come here to enjoy our shooting facilities, particularly those in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman rightly claimed, the Fraser of Allander Institute conducted a detailed survey and published a report this year showing that it is worth £78 million to Scotland. A large proportion of that sum comes from overseas visitors. It is immensely important for the Scottish rural economy, particularly for


hotels, restaurants and estate staff, that visitors come to shoot. Anything that prevents overseas sportsmen from coming to put money into the Scottish economy, or the English or Welsh economies, would be gravely resented. I hope that the Minister will not build up a bureaucratic licensing system for these visitors.
We are talking not only about visitors who come for sporting facilities, but about those who come for target shooting. Sporting shooting developed from the old Commonwealth. Many of our visitors come from beyond Europe to participate at Bisley and elsewhere. Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians are at the heart of the visiting shooting community. We do not want to build up a whole host of problems for them because we are harmonising a system of firearms certification within Europe.
I hope that the Minister realises that the directive has caused a furore in the shooting world, particularly in sporting and target shooting. Although what he has said shows a substantial step forward, until we have it in black and white we shall be worried that some points will again be changed in Europe. He must fight as hard as possible to help those who are interested in this legitimate form of recreation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister will have noticed that most of those who have spoken tonight have found the proposals highly disagreeable. Some have said that they will cause inconvenience to the shooting sport, others that they will cause damage and danger to the general public. Whichever way we look at it, hon. Members have spoken of the new proposals as being unnecessary, dangerous, bureaucratic and costly nonsense.
What worries me is that it is purely accidental that we have had the benefit of debating these proposals at a reasonable hour. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the circumstances that led to the directive being debated here today rather than in one of those anonymous Committees to which the Whips send safe people to discuss such matters so no one will notice them. We also have an obligation to the Welshmen, who did not take so long today as they usually do.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was greatly exercised about the use of article 100A, but that is nothing new. The EEC Commission has been deliberately and systematically using article 100A for a variety of measures which have nothing to do with free trade. The Minister said that he has raised, and will raise, the matter with the Commission, but what we are discussing is not just a problem which may affect sportsmen or marksmen but something affecting the basic democratic rights of the House.
I am sure that the Minister will recall, as he took an interest in these matters at the time, that the then Prime Minister assured us that under the Single European Act majority voting powers would be used only in matters concerning free trade, rather than for irrelevant nonsense. The Minister may recall reading the report of the Select Committee, which sought the advice of Speaker's Counsel on one directive and was advised that if the Commission used majority voting on this directive, it could use it on anything.
I see the Minister sitting with letters from the shooting organisations and taking a great interest in them, but what can he do? We can make a complaint, but unless every member state agrees with our complaint, we have had it and the Commission will decide. If the Commission wants a majority vote, it stays a majority vote unless Portugal, France, Italy and Germany and all the others say that it is wrong. I have done some careful checking and, so far as I can discover, that has never happened, so there is a constitutional problem that we cannot ignore. While hon. Members hope for great things from 1992 and free trade, we should be aware that we are not getting free trade. For example, we are not getting it in insurance or any other sectors which count and which would help people and jobs, but we are getting piles of harmonisation on silly issues such as this, which have no real relevance to free trade.
I hope that the Minister will accept that this is a dangerous measure which could cost lives. We know that people are constantly trying to get weapons into the country—from the Republic of Ireland, but far more regularly through Belgium and other European countries. To stop this, we need regular checks, but the directive will not allow us to have those regular checks. The Minister said that we shall still be able to have target checks. If Customs and Excise have reason to suspect certain people because they look funny or because they are carrying big bags, they can make checks, but the regular checks on which we depend to find weapons and save lives will not be allowed.
The people of Northern Ireland have gone through agonies for a long time, but people throughout the country are concerned about guns and their uses, as we should be. I telephoned the Police Federation today to find out its view on this. I am sure that the Minister will know that it has strong views, and I am sure that his excellent officials will be able to tell him what it thinks. I also know what the Association of Chief Police Officers thinks, and I am sure that the Minister's officials will have had its advice. I know that it does not think that this is a grand idea. It is a dangerous idea.
I appeal to the Minister, to the Labour party and to all other parties to say what we can do about the situation. We know that the directive is illegal because the Commission is using article 100A when it should not and is taking over policy from the House of Commons. I am not being anti-European—I am anti the abuse of EEC powers by the Commission. We must do something about this, because unless we do, we shall find that in all areas of policy—even on shooting magpies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said—the EEC will decide to do something and get it through by majority voting. That is illegal and against the rules. Speaker's Counsel said that it is not just a question of interpretation. Some of the officials who go backwards and forward all the time know exactly what is happening. My hon. Friend the Minister is one of the honest ones, and he knows what is happening. He knows that huge areas of policy are being taken away illegally, and we can do nothing about it through the rules. We have to get everyone to agree that something illegal is being done, but nobody ever will, so what on earth are we going to do about it?

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister said that it would be possible to take the matter to the European Court. The oddity is that he has not done so already.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister will be able to confirm that, until a determination is made by the Council, one cannot go to the court, and if one goes to the court, the case will take two years. In which case, has the court turned down a request for extra authority for the Commission? It never does. The European Court is not a legal court. Understandably, it is a political court, biased in favour not of political parties but of taking more and more power and authority for the institutions of the Community. Any hon. Member who doubts that should consider the case of the Spanish fishermen, which led to a huge area of power being taken away. For the sake of people whose lives will be put at risk by this directive, should we not say what the House of Commons can do? We can do nothing under the existing rules, but something has to happen—something has to be done.
Regular inspection is not just about guns. I am sorry that the Minister did not make this point. Without regular inspections, other objects will come in as well, such as flickknives, knuckledusters and swordsticks, which cause great offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will be glad to know that we still have our British law which says that such objects are illegal, and the Common Market cannot touch that British law, but without regular inspections those items will still come in, as will guns. I assure the House that the police and the Department have said that without regular checks there will be an increase in the number of such objects coming in. All of that is set out in the Select Committee report.
Sadly, as always happens when we debate anything to do with the EEC, although it is vital to our democracy, the Press Gallery is empty. All the bright twits who represent The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent and who say that they are concerned about people and their rights are interested in everything except the EEC. That is a threat to democracy, but ideologically they think that it is the best thing since sliced bread.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree with what was said the other day about the EEC—that if the European Community applied to become a member of the European Community, it would not he admitted because it does not, as an entity, conform with the democratic principles enshrined in the treaty of Rome?

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The European Community is not democratic in that sense. It is not as though we are transferring powers from this House to another democratic body. These are non-elected bodies. That is one reason why the previous Prime Minister, whatever the views of her people, did a fantastic job in telling the people of Britain, "We must look carefully at the whole issue of economic control by a central bank." We may or may not want it, but we in Parliament do not want to talk about it. Nobody wants to think about it. Our former Prime Minister did a great job in forcing people to say, "These matters must be examined."
There is nothing we can do about the directive at this stage, even if the Government were to describe it as scandalous and shocking. It will probably be passed by a majority vote, and there is nothing we can do about that

either. We cannot do anything about the use of article 100A because, as we know, the Greeks and all the others will never agree to our proposals.
Although we can do nothing in that context, we can try to find some procedure by which we can restore to this House the rights which legally we should still possess. I accept that we have surrendered power to the EC. We may describe that as sad or otherwise, but we must find some means of drawing the line. The Minister knows that this is an illegal document in relation to article 100A, but no one has any chance even to argue that it is legal. He knows that is a dangerous document which could cost lives. It is a bureaucratic and costly document which will involve a whole new lot of controls, computers and civil servants, and all of that effort will be unnecessary. Indeed, it is a dangerous load of rubbish. We must consider how we can prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I congratulate the Minister on his opening remarks and I do not agree with those who have said that there was something undesirable or improper in his providing the latest information, beyond that given in the written documents. I admit that I did not come to the debate with a carefully prepared speech, because I gathered that we would listen to the Minister's explanation first and then respond on the matters of interest to us. That has been the procedure and, to that extent, the Minister's comments led us forward in the debate.
Because some hon. Members have been cross with the Minister, they have overlooked the fact that not only did he give us the information that many of us had come to the House to obtain, but he invited us to point out to him those points on which it would be desirable to make further progress in the working party, through officials or through Ministers. We should be grateful for the progress that has been made, and the Minister was able to remove most of the fears that law-abiding shooters in my constituency have been putting to me in recent weeks.
I trust that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) is not seriously thinking of dividing the House on the issue. If he does, he will be behaving like Henny Penny. She had every right to be cross when an acorn fell on her head, but she grossly exaggerated matters when she set out to tell the world that the sky had fallen in.
It would have been nice to have all the information when preparing our remarks for the debate, but the Minister did us the courtesy of providing the latest information. Not only has it been important for us to have that knowledge, but we should do nothing that might discourage Ministers from providing information in future simply because it had not appeared earlier in written documents.
The key factor is that the directive was designed to improve the flow of trade and the movement of people across EC frontiers. I regard that as an excellent idea, but I accept the point made by the Government that we must ensure that that does not disadvantage those concerned with legitimate matters of trade.
Out of tonight's debate has come the almost unanimous feeling that we must not damage the interests of legitimate, law-abiding shooters. Although we frequently use the


phrase "law-abiding shooters," it should be unnecessary for it to be used. Shooters, almost by definition, are among the nation's most law-abiding people.
A constituent wrote to me this week saying that he was particularly careful in all matters concerned with shooting, even with parking and driving lest the constable with whom he happened to clash visited his home to inspect his firearms storage and security arrangements.
We must also remember that those who engage in shooting are not just passively concerned with security, as most of us are for most of the time, but are actively concerned with it—the law provides that they should be. However, they go beyond the requirements of the law and recognise that the very nature of their sport, be it target or rough shooting, could create a danger to security; they are greatly aware of that.
A misunderstanding has arisen during the debate about the security of people entering this country. Nothing in the directive will make any difference to the security checks that airlines carry out. They are conducted on the basis not of EEC directives but that people cannot board aeroplanes unless they are prepared to accept security checks, and that will continue. We have never searched every motor car coming into this country, and the idea that we have always checked everything in the past and are suddenly going to stop doing so is nonsense. Motor cars that could carry all sorts of goods come into the country and it would be physically impossible to check every one.
When intelligence suggests that an operation may be being undertaken, be it to do with drugs, weapons or people using false papers to enter this country, checks take place. That is the point at which the process of careful checks on papers, people and their property takes place, and there is no reason why that should not continue in future. As the Minister said, it will be possible to carry out security checks if there is a specific reason for doing so in an individual case, which is exactly the same as at present.
Presumably, the Minister could increase security by introducing far more checks. Border checks between Scotland and England might stop criminals with weapons moving from Glasgow to London, but nobody is suggesting that that is a desirable feature. We must appreciate that we live in a world in which people move more frequently and easily than in the past and national borders must facilitate the movement of people and goods. We need compensatory measures to ensure that there are careful checks on those coming into the EEC from outside and that we improve our intelligence networks with countries both inside and outside the European Community.
We should welcome the way in which the Government have developed the debate since the original directive was put forward. Has the Minister noted that the Vice President of the Commission responsible for the original directive was Mr. Bangemann? I do not know whether he considers that to be relevant, but I wanted to be the one to read that fact into the Official Report.

Mr. Michael Colvin: It is often said that, when bad news comes, one should not shoot the messenger. The Minister came to the House this evening with news that we all wanted to hear, containing points that we were to raise in some of our speeches. He came with good news, but I have seldom known such a

messenger to meet such a fusillade of shots. The reaction he received had less to do with the content of the draft directive and much more to do with the messy way in which the House deals with European legislation.
It seems pretty weird that the draft directive has been around since July 1987, yet the final amendments to it, which are so crucial and which the Minister has set out to us this evening, were not known until a few days ago. That is a strange way of proceeding.
The news that the Minister brought us, to use yet another sporting analogy, has shot our foxes. He made the very points that we were going to ask him to note before the Secretary of State went to the Council of Ministers arguing the toss on this country's behalf.
The Minister said that this debate and the directive would be of great interest to marksmen and sportsmen. I must declare an interest: I am both marksman and sportsman, and thus I am a member of a fairly large lobby. It is not often appreciated that a great many people in this country have firearm and shotgun certificates—about 1·1 million of them in all. That is 2 per cent. of the population; averaged out, it means that each of us represents about 1,300 constituents with such certificates. That is a significant lobby and it becomes vociferous when it feels that its rights are threatened.
Sportsmen and marksmen are the first to recognise the need for adequate controls on all firearms. The United Kingdom cannot be accused of not being a good European, as our regulations are probably the most stringent in Europe already. We are concerned that our rules and regulations should not be diluted by these proposals.
The firearms laws of this country had a good airing during the debate on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, so there is no need to go over them again this evening. We were worried, however, that under this directive visiting sportsmen might be able to enter the United Kingdom with weapons issued to them under less stringent controls than obtain here. The Minister has reassured us to some degree about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned the importance of shooting in Scotland and its contribution to the Scottish economy. In February this year a report was published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, of Glasgow university, showing that shooting in Scotland produced £78 million income, of which almost 25 per cent. was said to come from overseas visitors. About 12,000 jobs in Scotland come directly or indirectly from shooting—a considerable contribution to the British economy.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the age limits—probably the aspect of the draft directive that worried us most—are to be changed and those enshrined in our domestic law are to prevail.
Two of the provisions of the directive have not been fully covered by my hon. Friends and need further explanation from the Minister. The first has to do with the technical difficulty of categorising weapons. As drafted, the directive could have the effect of banning rifles and pistols which are of service issue—but those weapons are the mainstay of target shooting.
The other point that worries me is the condition in the directive that possession of a firearms certificate will depend on
the necessary mental and physical capacity


of the applicant. Who will decide that? Are disabled people to be barred from taking part in a sport in which they can compete on equal terms with the able-bodied? That would be a disgrace, given the large number of paraplegic members of shooting clubs.
I recently saw in The Times a photograph of Prince Charles shooting while he had the use of only one arm. I assume that the directive would disallow him from possession of a firearms certificate. Incidentally, I seem to remember that the picture appeared just above a headline reading "How the Cabinet assassins struck"—but that, of course, is all history now.
We should also consider the difficulties involved in administering the provision. At present, chief constables are responsible for issuing certificates, and will not do so if they consider that the applicant is of unsound mind or unfit to be entrusted with a firearm. Will that system remain under the directive, and will the right of appeal also remain? I think that we need to know that.
Much has been said this evening about the provision of the additional firearms passes to be used in Europe under article 1(4). I feel that it will lead to much more bureaucracy, which should be avoided at all costs.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to the views of the firearms consultative committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Kimball. The committee was set up specifically to examine and report the views of experts, who are best qualified to come up with a constructive line. I understand that the committee is to meet next week to discuss the proposals; it is a pity that it did not meet before the debate. I only hope that the documents available to the committee are more up to date than those before us tonight.
I trust that my hon. Friend will take note of what we have said this evening, and that it will strengthen his arm or those of other Ministers when they go back to Europe to discuss the matter further. Debates like this go right to the heart of the question of sovereignty. There is no doubt—if sovereignty means having control over one's own affairs—that, within the European Community, certain aspects of sovereignty are strengthened if our sovereignty is pooled with that of our partners.
I have no objection to a majority vote on what are essentially European Community matters involving all member states; however, I have the greatest possible objection to the majority vote being used to pass a directive that would impinge directly on the domestic laws of this country. I will not accept that such a vote should dictate whether we should shoot pigeons or magpies, whether it is legal for us to eat the British banger or whether a carrot is a fruit or a vegetable. Such matters are best left to our Parliament and our domestic law makers.
I believe that we have made a very good job of drafting and agreeing firearms legislation in this country—after, I may say, a good deal of agonising and debate. I think that the firearms laws that prevail here now should be left as they are, and should not be interfered with by our European partners.

Mr. James Hill: I have no axe to grind. I am not the chairman of a sporting club. I have never fired a gun on a rifle range. Therefore, I speak with

the great authority of those who know little or nothing about the taking of sporting weapons from one country to another. It is almost unnecessary to go into that question. However, national security matters have crept into the debate. This important debate will be one of a series on the effectiveness of our future border controls.
If the impression is given that the Commission is slackening off on border controls, our customs officers may begin to say to themselves, "We've been told that this particular pass is all right. As a lot of work is involved, we won't, therefore, go into it as rigorously as we did in the past." Terrible problems of that kind will arise time and again while European legislation pours through the House. I hope that much of it will be picked up in the new European Standing Committees and that we shall be able to ask questions that will clarify the position for the Minister. He will not then have to come back from meetings in Europe and tell us what he can remember of his last conversation in Brussels. I praise my hon. Friend for telling us about these facts. The Opposition want it all to be put down in black and white, but it has to be translated in a form that meets with the agreement of the other member states. It is extremely difficult to package such agreements.
I think that we all agree that the debate has focused on the wrong issue. I understand that 14-year-olds will be able to take guns, under supervision—I presume under the supervision of their parents—across borders. I suppose that they will be able to obtain permits. Nevertheless, I doubt it. The ages that were mentioned this evening varied greatly.
We must ensure that the message goes out from this place that at this time Customs and Excise must be extra vigilant. That applies to drugs, immigration and almost everything else. The Commissioners must adopt our standards. I am sufficiently non-European to be able to say that, although I am pro-European on practically everything else. We had this problem with the European driving licence. When these matters are raised, we must be able to argue the case with the maximum information before us. Our sovereignty must not be defended to an absurd degree—over such questions as the sausage—but when it comes to national security our sovereignty must be defended. This is probably the only member state of the Community that is under particular threat from acts of terrorism.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: As my speech has been wrecked by the assurances that the Minister has already given, I shall be brief.
I welcome the Minister's announcement concerning articles 5(a) and 5(b). They relate to the age limits of the physically and mentally handicapped. I congratulate him on his achievement.
I know very little about firearms, but one of my constituents, Mr. Derek Waterworth, is secretary of the north-west region shooting association. I wish to voice certain concerns of behalf of the association. I am glad that the Minister has already dealt with them. Mr. Waterworth, however, makes two further points. The letter states:
Annex 1, Category B. The need for authorisation to possess soft-nosed or hollow projectiles used in pistol ammunition.


Most target pistol shooters use projectiles…made entirely from lead alloy often with a flat nose and a hollow base, this being the most accurate configuration for a slow moving projectile over short distances. Many pistol shooters also mould their own bullets.
Mr. Waterworth asks whether it is realistic
to make the moulding of lumps of lead the subject of legislation. The proposal is aimed at copper jacketed ammunition with a flat or hollow lead nose of the type used for hunting game but this is not made clear. The directive also seeks to ban the use of military arms by civilians. Unlike some countries on the continent there has been a long tradition here of using military arms for sporting purposes. Not to mention clay pigeon and game shooters, there are over one hundred target shooting clubs in the North West Sports Council Region. Members of these clubs have personally invested considerable sums of money in their equipment.
Mr. Waterworth said that they are worried by the directive.
Mr. Waterworth and his members will welcome the Minister's announcement. Perhaps when he replies he will give us further reassurance on the final two points.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.
This has been a considerably longer debate than we would have had if it had started at the usual time after 10 o'clock. I make no complaint about that because I know that the subject raises considerable interest and concern among hon. Members ranging from the rules as they affect shooters to the effects on national security. Both are important. I have made long lists of the points that have been raised. If I move fairly rapidly, I hope to be able to respond to all the substantive points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) asked about age limits, as did many of my hon. Friends, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The agreement on age limits reached in the working party is that existing law shall prevail. No change will be made for age limits on shooting sports and target practice. I hope that that is sufficiently clear and that it satisfies hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked what documents would be required by shooters coming from other EEC countries. Under the directive, shooters will need licensing documents from their own state, which will be issued according to the law of their country. They will need the European firearms pass, which will also be issued by the particular country and is available to all those who have proper documentation and licences. We are insisting that we maintain the requirement for the British visitors permit. As hon. Members will know, that is issued only after there is a proper letter of information from a sponsor making clear the purpose of someone bringing in a gun for sporting use. It must also say what the sporting occasion is and where the gun will be used.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked about the pass and what it would cover. I think that I have dealt with that already. The European firearms pass is issued by member countries to those who ask for it and legitimately hold weapons under their national law.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the information system. It will provide a record of arms movements. Each member state will appoint a national authority. It may be the national police or the country's Interpol bureau. An information exchange system under a Council of Europe

convention on weapons already exists, and is said to work well by the states that have ratified it, including Germany and Italy.
Concern was expressed by a number of hon. Members about security, and several emphasised the need for intelligence if we are to ensure that firearms are not to be moved across the continent and over borders for terrorist and other criminal purposes. The rules and regulations will be an essential part of that intelligence exchange between European countries. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the danger of excessive bureaucracy. We want the minimum possible, but in achieving the ends that the hon. Gentleman asked us to address it will be essential to exchange information between countries.
I was reminded by both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that at present we do not stop everyone entering the United Kingdom and search their baggage. Many arrivals pass through the green channel. In fact, the number of people using it is increasing. The Community aims at phasing out customs controls. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was also worried about security, yet it would appear from his speeches that he shares that objective. However, he apparently desires that frontier checks should continue ad infinitum. We do not have full checks now, and under the Community proposals that he supports we will not have them at all.

Mr. Maclennan: I did not make that point, and would not have done so for the reasons that the Minister gave. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that issue. However, I am interested to know the views of the police.

Mr. Lloyd: Both the Association of Chief Police Officers and its Scottish counterpart are concerned that we should maintain the controls on visitors provided by the British visitor permit scheme. That is why we believe it is not only essential to maintain the visitor permit requirement but that we should have the right to make essential checks at our own border. On both issues, the police and the Government are at one. Achieving those conditions is part of our objective in the continuing negotiations.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend take the view that more money needs to be spent on the customs service to provide up-to-date equipment for scrutinising baggage? At present it is a question of catch as catch can, and it is not working very well. Once in a while a load of drugs is detected, but when it comes to detecting weapons surely customs halls should be equipped with more high-tech equipment.

Mr. Lloyd: Improved technology as well as improved intelligence can help. It is a constant battle to stay ahead and to detect and catch people who bring weapons into the country for illegitimate purposes.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked whether the negotiated directive will touch on movements to and from non-EC states. It will not, except in so far as it implies a strengthening of checks on visitors from countries outside the Community. The same question was of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), albeit from a different point of view.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) mentioned the firearms consultative


committee. We have kept the committee up to date with developments. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary relies upon this small but important committee for advice. It will meet next week, and no doubt will give us the benefit of its informed views.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland about the treaty base. He seemed to believe that this should be settled first in the negotiations. As he is interested in EEC matters, I am surprised that he had not yet come across the practice whereby a directive is negotiated and, although a treaty base may be in mind, it is not finally determined until what should go in the directive is agreed. As this directive has taken shape, we have made clear our opinion on what the base should be. Some countries, particularly Ireland, share our views.

Mr. Maclennan: I have, of course, come across this procedure before, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, because it was raised by the Government in the debate on enfranchisement of foreign nationals from European Community countries. I am surprised that this practice continues. To reach a detailed agreement before deciding whether it has been established on a proper legal basis is to put the cart before the horse. This is not a matter with which the Minister can deal unilaterally, but it is open to the Government to challenge it and to seek an advisory opinion of the European Court.

Mr. Lloyd: We have been challenging it, but discussions go on in parallel. That is why our arguments about the treaty base of the emerging directive were made before completion of the directive. The directive has not yet been agreed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised several specific and detailed points. The semiautomatic weapons element of the draft directive has been dropped. It would have caught self-loading pistols used by, for example, target shooters. The military calibre ban has also been dropped. We expect new and better wording to be included that will not affect target and sporting shooters.
My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Dumfries asked about airgun pellets. That aspect is not affected because the domestic law on sales to young persons and possession by prohibited persons which we already have still applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was worried about intensification of controls at external borders to which the directive referred, and I mentioned that point in responding to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The fears that this provision will damage the tourist industry are unjustified. The article is simply intended to improve public safety in Europe as a whole. It does no less than require that all non-EEC visitors who wish to bring firearms into the Community for sport or competition should first obtain the certification that member states think is proper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will find that the directive requires us to demand no more than we demand already of visitors who come here for shooting, which is such an important part of the industry of some parts of Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel reassured because the directive does not present any threat in that area.
My hon. Friend also referred to paraplegic shooters and to disabled shooters in general. We expect that in the new directive the limitations on the disabled will be wholly removed. We do not believe that such limitations are necessary. The working party agreed, and when the Commission publishes the next directive the limitations should not be included. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are concerned about that point. However, I must stress for the sake of accuracy that certain minor limitations in existing firearms legislation—and my hon. Friends knows them better than I do—will continue to be in force. I stress again that our domestic law governs the rules in this area.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the military weapons ban, which has now been dropped. The definitions that we expect to be in place will not ban normal rifles and pistols; they will ban only automatic-firing military weapons. My hon. Friend also referred to age limits, but I have dealt with that in replying to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was very worried about the treaty base. I understand what he says and he will understand, not least because I responded to him and to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland earlier, that we share his concern. We believe that the Commission is proposing the wrong treaty base. I can do no more that to repeat that we have put our arguments and that we expect a formal response. Until we have that response, it would not be useful to ask me how we shall decide to respond to it. Our response will depend on how strong we think the arguments are.
Many hon. Members referred to checks for security purposes. It is essential that we have rules that enable us to feel as secure as possible, and it is essential that in future we are no less secure than we are now. Within Europe, the old-fashioned customs checks are being reduced. Most travellers go through the green channel, and we have to rely on intelligence work and on the other ways of gathering information so that we can target our checks on the baggage and documentation on which our information suggests that we should most efficiently concentrate. That is how we now secure our frontiers against weapons and against undesirable elements such as drugs or other contraband. We do not secure our frontiers by having the right to challenge people who are going through the green channel.
I cannot stress too strongly that we believe that the necessary parts of the directive are those criticised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West for being bureaucratic. They will help to ensure that intelligence information, especially information on the movement of arms consignments, is available to the authorities. We also believe that it is essential that the British visitors permit should continue to be required. That is a central part of the argument that we have still to make in the working party.

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but can he tell the House how much that information system will cost?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know. We must consider that carefully and sensibly. I suspect that, even without the present directive, we should want to establish and expand such an information exchange. The system may not cost much more than we should anyway have spent—possibly


no more. The agreements which have already been ratified and which are in force in Germany and Italy seem to work well.
I think that I have answered most of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. I understand his argument that matters which seem to have been hanging fire for years suddenly move at great speed. Whether we like it or not, that is the way in which negotiations appear to be carried on in the Community. When an issue such as this comes to the forefront, we may move very fast on it in a series of meetings. That is why I shall say little about the fact that I was able to give the House what I knew was good news. With fast-moving negotiations, it is difficult to ensure that the House is kept fully informed, and I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House who came to the debate with well-prepared speeches only to find that the very argument that they had intended to press on me already seemed to have been conceded by our colleagues in Europe.

Mr. Wiggin: I am sure that we all accept that the Minister acted in good faith. Will he reaffirm, however, that the basic purpose of the directive is to ease trade across national frontiers?

Mr. Lloyd: That is part of the argument. The Community argues that the directive is intended to ease trade across frontiers and that is why it has chosen the present base, although the choice may have been influenced by the fact that it is a qualified majority base. We argue that the directive concerns the free movement of people who happen to be carrying weapons with them and that is why we are arguing for a different base. Both arguments concern ease of movement, whether it be of people or of goods.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) for his helpful and constructive remarks. It was good to hear at least one hon. Member say that he wholeheartedly welcomed my remarks.
I think that I have answered the two additional questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves).
I am grateful for the wise remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who knows well how the Community works, having himself been a member of the European assembly.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will not advise his hon. Friends to vote against the directive. It would be a pity if he did, because I think that he agrees with the general tenor of the Government's approach. We want this debate to be read and we want it to be understood within the Community, and if the Opposition voted against the directive it would look as though part of the House was not anxious for the Government to continue to press the points that we are determined to press. Having said that, I know why the hon. Gentleman argued as he did. As I said, I understand that hon. Members would like to have the most up-to-date information before a debate. With a fast-moving negotiation, that is not always possible, but I shall certainly speak to those who are responsible for these matters, for providing background papers and for the way in which the business is managed. Hon. Members' remarks will be drawn to their attention to be carefully considered.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 15.

Division No. 15]
[9.49 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Knapman, Roger


Amess, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Amos, Alan
Lawrence, Ivan


Arbuthnot, James
Lightbown, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Brazier, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Mans, Keith


Burt, Aiistair
Maples, John


Carrington, Matthew
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Monro, Sir Hector


Colvin, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Curry, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dunn, Bob
Paice, James


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Patnick, Irvine


Fishburn, John Dudley
Portillo, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Redwood, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fox, Sir Marcus
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Gale, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodlad, Alastair
Stern, Michael


Gorst, John
Stevens, Lewis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sumberg, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, William
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Tredinnick, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Viggers, Peter


Harris, David
Waller, Gary


Hawkins, Christopher
Warren, Kenneth


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Wells, Bowen


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Hill, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Hordern, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Irvine, Michael



Jack, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janman, Tim
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)



Kirkhope, Timothy





NOES


Bellotti, David
Pike, Peter L.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Randall, Stuart


Cummings, John
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hoyle, Doug
Wallace, James


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)



Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.


Maclennan, Robert



Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90, relating to controls on the acquisition and possession of weapons; and endorses the Government's view that any Directive must preserve the right of Member States to make those checks that are necessary for public security and public safety and that any additional burden on business should be kept to a minimum.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment)


Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Question agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved—[Mr. Sackville.]

Question agreed to.

CARAVANS (STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE AND RATING) BILL

Ordered,
That if the Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill [Money] and Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Sackville]

St. Helier Hospital, Sutton

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackyillei]

Sir Neil Macfarlane: I wish to raise the subject of security at St. Helier hospital in my constituency. The debate takes on an additional tragic dimension because of the double tragedy at Wakefield earlier this week, which affected hon. Members—in all corners of the House. My hon. Friend the Minister will be as shocked and saddened as I am, but our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acted quickly to inquire into precisely what happened. It throws hospital security well on to the national health service agenda. Some guidance is essential now from the Department.
I shall outline the circumstances of a horrendous crime committed in St. Helier hospital, Sutton. The hospital serves a wide area, including my constituency, and enjoys a considerable reputation throughout many parts of south London and Surrey. The horrendous crime was perpetrated against a constituent.
On 14 October 1990, a young girl of only 11 years was raped and indecently assaulted in the children's ward. I am certain that my hon. Friend will share my prime concern not only about the background to this terrible crime, but about the overall security of the whole site, the buildings and the unit. I am deeply concerned about the welfare of nursing and medical staff, clerical and administrative staff, maintenance, professional and technical staff as well as the welfare of the patients.
The father of the child wrote to me. His letter states:
My daughter has got a bit better physically and is now able to walk without help for over a week. She still gets very tired both physically and mentally but we hope and pray that as time goes by she will feel better.
Nobody can describe the distress felt by the parents, the community and, I suppose, the nation at large that a defenceless child left in the care of the local hospital could have been subjected to such an outrage. None of us can imagine the anguish of the parents of the girl as they try to help her come to terms with her terrible experience. Nobody in this House or outside it can appreciate the terror felt by the child who was unable to cry for help, alone in a cubicle and unsupervised, while the two nurses on duty were grappling with an emergency admission. Tragically, unknown to them, the real emergency was being enacted only yards away.
I emphasise that there were only two people on duty in that children's ward. I suppose that my hon. Friend and the inquiry board will query whether that level of staffing was adequate. One has to bear it in mind that the hospital and the area health authority are responsible for the girl's safety. This heinous crime should never have been allowed to happen. The fact that it did raises serious questions about staffing levels, both nursing and security, the quality of control and the direction exercised by the Merton and Sutton health authority and by the district general manager.
I am alarmed that my constituents were not given a little more tender loving care when it most mattered. The father said in his letter to me:
Since they (Hospital Admin.) have found out from my wife that I am in contact with you regarding this incident their whole attitude has suddenly changed and they are now, at a


very late stage, being extremely apologetic and diplomatic in their replies. I hope they do not give evasive answers to either you as my M.P. or to myself.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to comment on a number of points that need urgent consideration and, no doubt, action. We need to know how security requirements were co-ordinated between the Department of Health and the Merton and Sutton health authority, and with the St. Helier hospital itself. We need to know what instructions or guidelines were issued by the Department and whether they were followed to the letter of the law by the hospital.
If my hon. Friend's committee is satisfied on those points, will he consider issuing further and tougher guidelines? On 26 November, following the tragedy at Wakefield last week, the British Medical Association, through the voice of Dr. Patricia Price, a retired doctor from Birmingham, and one of the two BMA representatives on the Department of Health advisory committee on violence, said:
Recommendations on training, preventive measures and other aspects to help reduce the incidence of violence were made in our report and health authorities were advised to put them into effect. Unfortunately, these recommendations have only been partially taken up. We recognised that we could not eliminate violence, but in view of this sad incident I would ask all health authorities to take a fresh look at their existing procedures to see whether they need updating.
What security system was in place at St. Helier at the time of the rape of this child? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it was adequate? Is there any evidence of negligence by the security firm involved, or was it given inadequate and vague guidance by the hospital? Why was the child moved from the larger ward into the small private room at that time? How was and is liaison between security staff and the medical staff conducted? Is it good, and are the rules laid down scrupulously observed by all concerned? Were they observed on 14 October?
I had a communication today from the BMA's parliamentary officer, who has highlighted something that had been expressed by its members. The letter says:
I understand from BMA members working at the hospital that the paediatric ward is situated at a distance from the main hospital and is somewhat cut off and also that there is no fence surrounding the hospital. I also understand that a number of female houseofficers have felt nervous about working at the hospital at night.
It seems that there have been general site security problems at this large hospital for some time and that the public and many schoolchildren use the gate at the rear of the hospital as a short cut through the hospital grounds. I am also told that people are allowed to walk their dogs and ride their bikes in the grounds and that shopping trolleys are wheeled across a corridor which is a connection between hospital units and blocks. There appears, sadly, to be no authority to stop them, and I suspect that many other hospitals face the same difficulties.
There are some interesting and revealing facts that the Minister may need to review in the light of this occurrence and the most recent horrendous crimes in Wakefield. Security at St. Helier until July 1989 was the responsibility of the portering staff. That in itself seems an onerous task for people who have other prime functions to perform and I find it astonishing, given the growth in crimes of violence on hard-working hospital staff in the past 10 to 15 years. One wonders how many other NHS hospitals still depend on that type of security.
The bitter irony is that, rightly and properly, the St. Helier hospital management wanted a more professional

approach to security and appointed Gardner Merchant to handle site security. I hope that the Minister and his officials will be able to determine where responsibility lies when a private contractor moves into an NHS unit. Does that contractor take over duties without any day-to-day involvement of the hospital staff, and how frequent is that contact?
I have the feeling that, despite the devoted excellence of the staff in all quarters of St. Helier hospital, something is lacking in management direction. One wonders whether the reception area is manned properly at all times. I am told that hospital staff are vulnerable at weekends, especially on Saturday nights. Who supervises the security office, and what studies have been made by hospital and authority management staff of the work of the one person in the security control office? For what hours is the reception area manned?
I fear that there is anxiety and a lack of confidence in those responsible for the management of some aspects of the hospital, but is it their fault? Is not the unit at St. Helier too large for efficient and effective day-to-day control? Is not the site disadvantageous? What is the infrastructure like from the point of view of future planning, direction and control? Much work must be done now to restore confidence and morale.
There is another element of confusion. I received a letter from the chairman of the proposed St. Helier NHS trust saying:
The security at St. Helier is arguably the best in the region and has been recognised by the staff as a huge improvement on the pre-privatisation system.
Unfortunately, the evidence at present does not point to that. He goes on:
No-one associated with any normal hospital can expect prison-like security.
Of course not, and we do not want that, but we want an effective balance between the two extremes. He goes on:
The inquiry found no negligence, but made some recommendations as to additional security.
Many questions must be answered. It is for the police to identify the way in which this depraved man was able to enter the hospital, and to bring him to justice, but that will not bring back this child's happy, carefree, innocent former life, probably now gone for ever. It is for the area health authority to determine whether security and nursing systems broke down, as in time they were bound to under the present administration in so large a hospital on such an unsatisfactory site; and it is for the district health authority to determine the capacity of an administrator who described this disgraceful and repulsive assault on an innocent child asleep in a hospital bed as "an untoward incident."
It is for the Minister's Department to determine whether the hard-stretched medical services in the hospital are receiving the direction and support that they have a right to expect, or whether the Merton and Sutton health authority has been negligent. I do not point the finger at anybody, but the time has come for the investigation to he made public and for the parents of their 11-year-old daughter to be made fully aware of what took place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane) is right to be outraged by the incident that took place in St. Helier hospital. He takes the district general manager to task for


using the phrase "an untoward incident". While that may be national health service terminology, it certainly does not properly express the sense of outrage that any decent person would feel on reading the background to that incident. In addition, it does not express the sense of disappointment felt in the district health authority that the incident should have taken place in one of its hospitals. However, my hon. Friend should not read into that choice of words any sense that the health authority is any less concerned by the sad and tragic incident than he is or any right thinking person would be.
I associate myself and the district health authority with the sympathy that my hon. Friend expressed, primarily for the victim of the terrible crime, whose life is at risk of being scarred by what happened, at the very least for a long time, and possibly for ever. It is right that I should also associate myself and the district health authority with the sympathy expressed by my hon. Friend for the victim's family, as it is to them that the prime burden falls of trying to rebuild the victim's confidence, and bolster her belief and desire to pursue her childhood into a full and fulfilled adulthood. To that extent, the district health authority and I share my hon. Friend's sense of outrage and his sympathy for the victim and her family.
My hon. Friend asked me to go into some detail on the Government's attitude toward security in hospitals. As I think my hon. Friend would recognise, that is not an easy subject, particularly when set against the background of the incident at St. Helier hospital and the even more tragic incident of the murder of two people at Pinderfields general hospital earlier this week. Those are terrible crimes, which raise with a new urgency the difficult problems faced by hospital managers every day of their working lives as they try to secure a proper balance in the security policies pursued by their hospitals.
A hospital manager has to have a clear policy and to recognise his responsibility for the security of the premises, staff and patients. An important part of his duties is to ensure that he takes the necessary steps to discharge that responsibility. Proper security precautions must be taken in hospitals to ensure that NHS property is not stolen, NHS staff are not subjected to personal abuse, physical threats and violence of the sort that we saw earlier this week, and patients on NHS property do not become victims of the sort of terrible incident that we are discussing. Those are the primary responsibilities of NHS managers in dealing with security.
However, we must also remember that a hospital is a place of open access and it is important that we do not pursue a security policy that makes the legitimate visitor to a hospital feel that he has to get past a security guard before his condition can be treated. That difficult balance must be struck. The key of any successful security policy in an NHS hospital is the word "balance." We must meet our proper security obligations without making the visitor to an NHS hospital feel that he has to justify himself to the security guard. Many of the people who come to NHS hospitals are either suffering from a condition requiring urgent treatment, so that the last thing they want to do is negotiate their way over a security hurdle, or are emotionally upset because they are the friends and

relatives of people who may be ill. The last thing the relative of a cancer victim wants to encounter is a stroppy security guard. A difficult balance must be struck.
My hon. Friend has asked how the Department tries to strike this balance and to discharge our responsibilities. First, we must recognise that security in NHS institutions is necessarily and rightly the responsibility of managers of those institutions. We cannot have Ministers second-guessing routine day-to-day managerial decisions in every hospital around the country—that way lies disaster. I firmly believe that the best way of ensuring efficient and effective management of the NHS is to give managers the authority to allow them to discharge their tasks and then to support them when they make reasonable efforts to discharge them.
That is not to say that there is no place for guidance and support for these managers. That is why in 1984 the Government supported the production by the National Association of Health Authorities of an NHS security manual, which is the reference volume that all NHS managers use to assess and develop their security policies.
The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, as it is now, proposed that the document should be updated. In the Department's initial response we suggested that NAHAT should recover the cost of a revised security manual from the sale of the books to health authorities. I have reviewed that decision in the light of the recent events in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Pinderfields hospital earlier this week, and I have today asked for £20,000 to be made available to NAHAT to meet the pre-production costs of an updated version of the manual. I am sure that NAHAT will produce an equally valuable updated version that will take into account recent experience. I hope that that shows the seriousness with which the Government view recent incidents and my determination to ensure that the lessons from them should be learnt and applied.
I distance myself from some of the criticisms made by my hon. Friend of the way in which the incident in St. Helier hospital was acted upon by Merton and Sutton health authority. The authority is entitled to some credit for having quickly set up an inquiry to look into all the circumstances and to learn the lessons from the incident. Merton and Sutton health authority spends £140,000 a year on security at St. Helier hospital. Clearly, that security did not work in this case, so the authority's record is not perfect, but security is taken seriously at the hospital.
My hon. Friend suggested that part of the answer lay in the number of nurses on the children's ward. He rightly said that there were two on duty that night—but he did not say that it was a Saturday night and that there were five patients on the ward. Two nurses for five patients on a Saturday night cannot be said to represent thin staffing levels, and I do not believe that the right response to a security problem is necessarily an increase in staff nursing levels.
More important, perhaps, is the fact that we should not try to debate specific security precautions—in a specific hospital—on the Floor of the House. I take some comfort from the knowledge that the health authority set up a proper committee to examine the issue quickly, and that that committee in turn reported within a fortnight of the incident.
Let me quote two of the comments made in the committee's report. First, it states:


it is the considered opinion of the Committee…following extensive interviews and receipt of comprehensive written reports and evidence, that security arrangements at St. Helier Hospital have improved over recent years, are valued by those working within the hospital environment and have been found to be a greater level of comprehensiveness than a number of systems in comparable hospitals.
That is not the report of a committee overwhelmingly concerned by its findings—although it went on to make a number of proposals, including some that were touched on by my hon. Friend, on such matters as the gate at the back of the hospital and the need for proper fencing round the hospital. Those proposals were considered, and recommendations were made—recommendations which the health authority has said it will take very seriously.
Secondly, the report states:
It is considered that the staffing levels generally employed by Unitrust"—
the security firm—
at St. Helier Hospital are adequate.
Although the report does not say—indeed, it could not, in the circumstances—that everything in the hospital is wonderful and no improvements can be made, it gives qualified support to the security policy pursued there and makes a number of detailed proposals for its improvement.
Let me quote from another report about the incident—by Merton and Sutton community health council, which is not always a friend of hospital management. It is on record as saying:
Given the timescale the Committee conducted a thorough investigation"—
I take comfort from that.
The report and background evidence compiled show that St. Helier Hospital is comparable if not better than other hospitals with regards to security.
It also states:

The report indicates an improvement in security since the appointment of a specialist security firm and an improvement in the security consciousness of staff".
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that that suggests that the health authority has taken the problem seriously. It has set up a committee to advise it on how steps can be taken to improve the position and, furthermore, the committee's report has been examined by the CHC, which has declared itself satisfied that it is a serious piece of work which makes sensible proposals about how improvements can be made.
We are talking about a tragic incident, which demonstrates the existence of a problem to which we have not yet found a wholly satisfactory answer. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the Government have acted today to provide additional money to ensure that the NHS security manual is fully up to date, and that all the lessons of recent experience are learnt and applied. I hope that he will also accept that the district health authority has taken action to try to ensure locally that lessons are learnt, and that at all levels in the NHS—local management and Department of Health—we shall do what we can; but, if I may return to my first point, we must recognise that security policy in NHS hospitals is properly and inevitably a matter of balance.
It would be wholly irresponsible for any Minister to stand here and say that any steps taken by him, or any taken by NHS managers, can constitute an absolute assurance that such an incident will never happen again. Such an assurance cannot be given; the assurance that I do give is that we will try hard to learn the lessons of these incidents, and also try to stop them from happening again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.